Dark Age History

Irish Archaeological Research Magazine - Free Digital edition

2011-11-29T14:59:00.002Z

New Free Archaeology Magazine

The First issue of Irish Archaeological Research Magazine has arrived! The magazine is totally free and can be downloaded from here .

Download

The magazine features some great articles about the history, archaeology and heritage of Ireland so if you have an interest in any of these subjects or you know someone who might be why not have a look.

There will be flash and html 5 versions of the magazine being released early next month for a more interactive experience.

Contents Include :

*Request for articles 1

*Introduction to IAR 2

*So who are Irish Archaeological Research? 3

*IAR’s Night at the Museum 5

*Living History at Aughnaure Castle 7

*Past Performance: Agendas Ifor experimental Archaeology 13

*Bone of Contention: The Raystown ‘idol’ 15

*Beyond the Summit: Remote Sensing 17

*A Vernacular Apocalypse Now 25

*Them Bones… Them Bones need….Examining 32

*Swordplay in the 20th Century 35

*The Cleaning of a Roman coin using electrolysis 39

*Mystery surrounding strange stone unearthed on Cave Hill, Belfast 42

The magazine is looking for your help; the IAR Digital Magazine is written by volunteers, people just like you. They are looking for news items and articles about archaeology, history, heritage and culture. Is there a subject here that interests you? You do not have to be an expert; just have a good working knowledge of your subject and a passion to inform the wider world about it. Are you involved with a local historical society or heritage network and want to spread the word about your organisation? If yes why not write a small article and send it in to us.

As the magazine is digital it can reach a large worldwide audience with more ease than a traditional papermagazine. Our website and facebook page receive over 9000 visits each month. The top 5 countries many of these visitors come from are UK, Ireland, USA, Italy and Australia. The size of the article depends on your subject, generally 200‐500 words and it can include as many images and illustrations as are needed to suit the article.

Submit your article to magazine@irisharchaeologicalresearch.com

Reconstructing late sixth century British chronology

2011-11-23T19:35:00.011Z

Reconstructing late sixth century British chronology - The 12 year hiatus.

In this essay I seek to reconstruct the chronology of the second half of sixth century northern Britain, from the time of Ida onwards. The difficulties in the chronology are apparent in the various sources that are used to construct it. Our current understanding of the chronology is based on the work of Bede in the early eighth century and the Historia Brittonum in the ninth. The tenth century Anglo Saxon Chronicles then use a combination of both of these to construct its own chronology. It used the dating of the start of Aethelfriths reign in 592 as given by Bede, then counted back the regnal years as given in the HB to arrive at a date for when Ida arrived in 547. This date has then been enshrined in our history as the turning point in Britain for it was from this time on that Saxon ascendency dominated and the power of the Britons was pushed back to the west lands and beyond. The background to this is mainly the early Northumbrian settlement in the late 6thC which prompted the wars against the Britons - Dutigern, Urien, Gwallog etc. The parts of Northumbria we are most concerned with are Deira and Bernicia.

For some brief background details of the accepted chronology see here:

The Kingdom of Northumbria

For more in depth analysis see here:

http://www.heroicage.net/issues/2/ha2pen.htm
http://www.heroicage.net/issues/2/ha2rh.htm
http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/9/grimmer.html
http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/4/ziegler.html

HB = Historia Brittonum,
ASC = Anglo Saxon Chronicle.
AC = Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals)

Bede

The first task would be to prove the chronology is wrong. D.P. Kirby in his book The Earliest English Kings suggests that Aelle mentioned in the HB as dying in 588 (in current chronology, no dates given in HB) properly belongs to the late sixth century. I agree with this re-dating of Aelle and go further in rearranging the whole chronology of the late sixth century following Ida. In support of Kirby’s chronology this line from Bede's Chronica Maiora (circa 725) appears to suggest that Aelle and Aethelfrith were contemporaries ruling Northumbria, most likely Bernicia and Deira. It occurs just after the mention of Augustine coming to Britain in 596 and Ethelbert's conversion.

"porro gentes anglorum ab aquilone humbri fluminis sub regibus aelle et aedilfrido sitae necdum verbum vitae audierant."

"far away (further?), the nation of the Angles of the North Humbrian river under the leadership of Aelle and Aethelfrith have not yet heard the word of God? (Vitae? - life)"

Kirby places the end of Aelle's reign to about 599 (myself at 600) which could work with Bede's mention here of him just after Augustine's arrival and Ethelbert's conversion. This means then that Aelle could not possibly have died in 588. So we now know the Chronology is wrong. The difference is 11/12 years, which I hope to show is an error of Bede making Aethelfrith's reign last 24 years instead of 12, caused because Aethelfrith is said to have ruled both Bernicia for 12 years and then Deira for another 12 years.

Therefore Aelle appears to have been the King of Deira immediately before Aethelfrith, so until around 600. What seems to have happened is that on Aelle's death in 600 Aethelfrith, a Bernician noble, became regent of Deira due to the young age of Edwin (son of Aelle) and by his marriage to Aelle's daughter. He then moved against Bernicia on the death of their king Hussa in 603 whose son Hering went to the Dal Riatans of Aedan Mac Gabran to obtain the help. Aedan sent an army with Hering. To no avail though, Hering's/Aedan's army was defeated at Degsastan and Aethelfrith became ruler of both Bernicia and officially Deira in 604 by expelling Edwin now 18. So now we know the accepted chronology is wrong let’s look at it and compare it to a revised one. Starting with the accepted Chronology...

Main Players:

Aethelfrith, King of Bernicia,

Aelle, King of Deira,
Aethelbert - King of Kent,

Freothwulf and Hussa kings of Bernicia,

Ida - first king of Bernicia.

So Bede tells us in the last paragraph of his work :

"AT this time, Ethelfrid, a most worthy king, and ambitious of glory, governed the kingdom of the Northumbrians, and ravaged the Britons more than all the great men of the English, insomuch that he might be compared to Saul, once king of the Israelites, excepting only this, that he was ignorant of the true religion. For he conquered more territories from the Britons, either making them tributary, or driving the inhabitants clean out, and planting English in their places, than any other king or tribune. To him might justly be applied the saying of the patriarch blessing his son in the person of Saul, "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf; in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil." Hereupon, Ædan, king of the Scots that inhabit Britain, being concerned at his success, came against him with an immense and mighty army; but was beaten by an inferior force, and put to flight; for almost all his army was slain at a famous place, called Degsastan, that is, Degsastone. In which battle also Theodbaid, brother to Ethelfrid, was killed, with almost all the forces he commanded. This war Ethelfrid put an end to in the year 603 after the incarnation of our Lord, the eleventh of his own reign, which lasted twenty-four years, and the first year of the reign of Phocas, who the governed the Roman empire. From that time, no king the Scots durst come into Britain to make war on the English to this day"

So Aethelfrith's reign is said by Bede to start 11 years before the battle of Degsastan in 603. This makes a date of 592 for the start of his reign. Now our common chronology of this period then merely counts back using the regnal years of kings given in the HB to arrive at the date for Ida. So it looks like this from Ida,:

547	Ida, the son of Eoppa, possessed countries on the left-hand side of Britain, i.e. of the Humbrian sea, and reigned twelve years, and united Dynguayth Guarth-Berneich
547-559	Then Dutigirn at that time fought bravely against the nation of the Angles. At that time, Talhaiarn Cataguen was famed for poetry, and Neirin, and Taliesin and Bluchbard, and Cian, who is called Guenith Guaut, were all famous at the same time in British poetry
547-559	The great king, Mailcun reigned among the Britons, i.e. in the district of Guenedota, because his great-great-grandfather, Cunedda, with his twelve sons, had come before from the left-hand part, i.e. from the country which is called Manau Gustodin, one hundred and forty-six years before Mailcun reigned, and expelled the Scots with much slaughter from those countries, and they never returned again to inhabit them
559	Adda, son of Ida, reigned eight years
567	Ethelric, son of Adda, reigned four years
571	Theodoric, son of Ida, reigned seven years
578	Freothwulf reigned six years. In whose time the kingdom of Kent, by the mission of Gregory(596 Augustine), received baptism. (so should really be dated to 590's)
584	Hussa reigned seven years. Against him fought four kings, Urien, and Ryderthen, and Gualllauc, and Morcant. Theodoric fought bravely, together with his sons, against that Urien. But at that time sometimes the enemy and sometimes our countrymen were defeated, and he shut them up three days and three nights in the island of Metcaut; and whilst he (Urien) was on an expedition he was murdered, at the instance of Morcant, out of envy, because he possessed so much superiority over all the kings in military science.
591	Eadfered Flesaurs (Aethelfrith) reigned twelve years in Bernicia, and twelve others in Deira and gave to his wife Bebba, the town of Dynguoaroy, which from her is called Bebbanburg

So this dating of Ida, also reflected in the ASC, can be seen to derive from the HB regnal years. But they take no account of the problem of Freowulf during the arrival of Augustine. So something is wrong here. The HB states that Freowulf was reigning when Augustine arrived in 596 and that he reigned before Hussa who is commonly dated to the 580's! These two kings appear to be the crux of the matter. They do not appear to be part of Ida's line and by 592 Aethelfrith is supposed to have ousted them. The HB says that Freothwulf reigned 6 years and Hussa 7 years.

If we read this as the HB intended ,it places both Freowulf and Hussa in the 590's at a time when Bede says that Aethelfrith was already in power by 592. Something's not correct here. Hussa's son Hering is said to have fought at the battle of Degsastan in the ASC:

"A.D. 603. This year Aedan, king of the Scots, fought with the Dalreathians, and with Ethelfrith, king of the Northumbrians, at Theakstone; where he lost almost all his army. Theobald also, brother of Ethelfrith, with his whole armament, was slain. None of the Scottish kings durst afterwards bring an army against this nation. Hering, the son of Hussa, led the army thither."

It looks like Hering led an army supported by Aedan's Dal Riatans. If so it may be that the sons of Hussa had appealed to the Dal Riadan court for help and were seeking to establish their rule with Aedans help. This suggests that the Dal Riatans may have had some role in supporting the reigns of Freothwulf and Hussa, who were not of the line of Ida, to which Aethelfrith belonged.

If Freowulf was around when Augustine arrived in 596 then we could say that 596 was his last year and Hussa's began in 596 which would make his seven years arrive at 603. What is the answer to this? Can we trust Bede on this or have the two intermediate kings Freowulf and Hussa been erased from Bede's chronology and the reign of Aethelfrith extended? Or were the regnums of Freo and Hussa counted even though they may have been in exile? However, Aethelfriths battle in 603 against Aedan may have been the first actual year of his reign in Bernicia. The HB though following Bede does give him a 24 year reign. I am inclined to think that Bede has erased the two intermediate
kings and extended the reign of Aethelfrith by design. Alternatively were Freo and Hussa sub kings of Aethelfrith? Seems unlikely.

If Freothwulf and Hussa are moved to the 590's (with Aelle) then much of the HB's chronology would make sense. Urien etc would be placed in the 590's where they belong, fighting Hussa. Theoderic would also be dated much later, enabling him to fight Urien earlier on before Hussa. Ethelric, Aethelfriths father would also move closer to a better time and Adda would then be able to fight Gorgi and Peredur (d.circa 580 AC) of Ebrauc (who in the common chronology can't because of a 12 year difference see Triads Ynys Prydein - Eda Glinmawr). See Michelle Zieglers blog post here that mentions this problem. This would also solve the problem of Gorgi and Peredur fighting at the battle of Arderydd in 573.

The Chronology from Ida in the HB would then look like this, placing him slightly later than traditionally given (a difference of 12 years from 547 to 559) :

559	Ida, the son of Eoppa, possessed countries on the left-hand side of Britain, i.e. of the Humbrian sea, and reigned twelve years, and united Dynguayth Guarth-Berneich
559-571	Then Dutigirn at that time fought bravely against the nation of the Angles. At that time, Talhaiarn Cataguen was famed for poetry, and Neirin, and Taliesin and Bluchbard, and Cian, who is called Guenith Guaut, were all famous at the same time in British poetry.
559-571	The great king, Mailcun reigned among the Britons, i.e. in the district of Guenedota, because his great-great-grandfather, Cunedda, with his twelve sons, had come before from the left-hand part, i.e. from the country which is called Manau Gustodin, one hundred and forty-six years (so 413-425 very plausible as Constantine had taken the last of Britain's Legions to Gaul) before Mailcun reigned, and expelled the Scots with much slaughter from those countries, and they never returned again to inhabit them.
571-579	Adda, son of Ida, reigned eight years
579-583	Ethelric, son of Adda, reigned four years. (father of Aethelfrith)
583-590	Theodoric, son of Ida, reigned seven years
590-596	Freothwulf reigned six years. In whose time the kingdom of Kent, by the mission of Gregory(596 Augustine), received baptism.
596-603	Hussa reigned seven years. Against him fought four kings, Urien, and Ryderthen, and Gualllauc, and Morcant. Theodoric fought bravely (circa 589/590), together with his sons, against that Urien. But at that time sometimes the enemy and sometimes our countrymen were defeated, and he shut them up three days and three nights in the island of Metcaut; and whilst he (Urien) was on an expedition he was murdered, at the instance of Morcant, out of envy, because he possessed so much superiority over all the kings in military science.
603 (592 Bede)	Eadfered Flesaurs (Aethelfrith) reigned twelve years in Bernicia, and twelve others in Deira and gave to his wife Bebba, the town of Dynguoaroy, which from her is called Bebbanburg

Now after this battle in 603 is usually said to be when Aethelfrith became leader of Deira as well, in 604 and he reigned for another 12 years. It seems to me that Aethelfrith became ruler of both in 603/4 and then reigned only for 12 years not 24. He seems to have become friendly with the Dal Riatans after this though as on his own defeat in 616 his sons, Aenfrith, Oswald and Oswiu fled there for safety and exile from the returning Edwin.

We can turn now to the ASC.

A.D. 552. This year Cynric fought with the Britons on the spot that is called Sarum, and put them to flight. Cerdic was the father of Cynric, Cerdic was the son of Elesa, Elesa of Esla, Esla of Gewis, Gewis of Wye, Wye of Frewin, Frewin of Frithgar, Frithgar of Brand, Brand of Balday, Balday of Woden. _In this year Ethelbert, the son of Ermenric, was born_, who on the two and thirtieth year of his reign received the rite of baptism, the first of all the kings in Britain.

Ethelbert converted to Christianity in 596 as noted before. 32 years before this would equal his reign starting in 564 but that's too long a reign of about 53 years. The answer is that it is from his year of birth, not reign that was meant. A difference again of 12 years.

So AD 552 in the ASC is actually AD 564/5. Similarly as above Ida in 547 is actually 559/60.

So the ASC chronicle should look like this for these dates (I've removed the ancestry data)

559	This year Ida began his reign; from whom first arose the royal kindred of the Northumbrians. Ida was the son of Eoppa. Ida reigned twelve years. He built Bamburgh-Castle, which was first surrounded with a hedge, and afterwards with a wall.
563/565	This year Columba the presbyter came from the Scots among the Britons, to instruct the Picts, and he built a monastery in the island of Hii. (563 according to Irish Annals but circa 565 is fine) And Columba, the mass-priest, came to the Picts, and converted them to the belief of Christ. They are the dwellers by the northern moors. And their king gave him the island of Hii, consisting of five hides, as they say, where Columba built a monastery. There he was abbot two and thirty winters; and there he died, when he was seventy-seven years old. The place his successors yet have. The Southern Picts were long before baptized by Bishop Ninnia, who was taught at Rome. His church or monastery is at Hwiterne (Whitehorn), hallowed in the name of St. Martin, where he resteth with many holy men. Now, therefore, shall there be ever in Hii an abbot, and no bishop; and to him shall be subject all the bishops of the Scots; because Columba was an abbot -- not bishop. (this was second part of 572(563) entry but moved from that date to it's correct place. Two events put in wrong chronological time by ASC).
564	This year Cynric fought with the Britons on the spot that is called Sarum, and put them to flight. Cerdic was the father of Cynric, Cerdic was the son of Elesa. In this year Ethelbert, the son of Ermenric, was born, who on the two and thirtieth year of his reign received the rite of baptism, the first of all the kings in Britain. (now agrees with Ethelberts 32nd year being 596, so it is not the 32nd year of his reign but from the year of his birth.)
568	This year Cynric and Ceawlin fought with the Britons at Beranbury
572	This year Ceawlin undertook the government of the West-Saxons; and Ella, on the death of Ida (now agrees with the revised HB chronology, Ida dying in 571), that of the Northumbrians; each of whom reigned thirty winters (Ella = 28 years 572-600). Ella was the son of Iff. This year Ethelbert came to the kingdom of the Cantuarians, and held it fifty-three winters (625 an error). In his days the holy Pope Gregory sent us baptism. That was in the two and thirtieth year of his reign (596. Again the 32nd year of reign must be wrong, and birth must be meant)

Problem above is that it mentions one Ella as ruling in Northumbria from 572, however the HB says that Adda was in power at this time for 8 years. The solution is that Ella/Aelle was king of Deira and Adda of Bernicia.

575	This year Ceawlin, and Cutha the brother of Ceawlin, fought with Ethelbert, and pursued him into Kent. And they slew two aldermen at Wimbledon, Oslake and Cnebba
578	This year Cuthulf fought with the Britons at Bedford, and took four towns, Lenbury, Aylesbury, Benson, and Ensham. And this same year he died.
583	This year Mauricius succeeded to the empire of the Romans. (dating now reconciled to correctness by mention of Mauritius but entry below was originally before this so now moved to after once redated)
584	This year Cuthwin and Ceawlin fought with the Britons, and slew three kings, Commail, and Condida, and Farinmail, on the spot that is called Derham, and took from them three cities, Gloucester, Cirencester, and Bath. (in effect I have redated the fall of these cities from 577 to 584)
585	(adjusted by one year from 584) This year Ceawlin and Cutha fought with the Britons on the spot that is called Fretherne. There Cutha was slain. And Ceawlin took many towns, as well as immense booty and wealth. He then retreated to his own people
591	This year there was a great slaughter of Britons at Wanborough; Ceawlin was driven from his kingdom, and Ceolric reigned six years
592	This year Gregory succeeded to the papacy at Rome
593	This year died Ceawlin, and Cwichelm, and Cryda; and Ethelfrith succeeded to the kingdom of the Northumbrians. He was the son of Ethelric; Ethelric of Ida. (should be 603 for Aethelfrith)
596	year Pope Gregory sent Augustine to Britain with very many monks, to preach the word of God to the English people
600	(moved from 588) This year died King Ella; and Ethelric (Aethelfrith) reigned after him five (12 years) years. (Ethelric of earlier reigned 4 years)
601	This year Pope Gregory sent the pall to Archbishop Augustine in Britain, with very many learned doctors to assist him; and Bishop Paulinus converted Edwin, king of the Northumbrians, to baptism
603	This year Aeden, king of the Scots, fought with the Dalreathians, and with Ethelfrith, king of the Northumbrians, at Theakstone; where he lost almost all his army. Theobald also, brother of Ethelfrith, with his whole armament, was slain. None of the Scottish kings durst afterwards bring an army against this nation. Hering, the son of Hussa, led the army thither.

The Welsh Annales Cambrae don’t help an awful lot in deciding the chronology except for the entry of 580 concerning Gorgi and Peredur dying, which with the revised chronology above would now enable them to be available to fight Adda. In the old chronology this was not possible due to a 12 year difference. See here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adda_of_Bernicia .

So all the chronological problems are solved by correcting Bede's error of making Aethelfrith rule for 24 years instead of 12. Bede, writing 100+ years after the event must have assumed that as Aethelfrith was king of both Deira and Bernicia that these ran one after the other instead of together or he wilfully wrote out two other kings from history. This error was then perpetuated in the later HB and ASC.

Interestingly, re-dating this chronology reveals some startling correspondences. The mention of Maglocunus by Gildas has always been difficult when reconciled with the dating in the HB if the battle of Badon was in 516, as Maglocunus in the old chronology would exist/die in 547. In this new scheme he would exist in the timescale of 559-571. This would now agree with Gildas and with the battle of Badon in 516 (in the ASC) as 516+44 years (the age of Gildas when he wrote) would give us the year 560 when Maglocunus is said to be alive by Gildas. This would then also explain why Gildas is extolling the British tyrants to take arms against the new Saxon threat begun by Ida and his arrival in 559. That he did not publish his book until ten years later, so in 570 would explain perhaps that these five kings were now dead. (Maglocunus, Aurelius Caninus, Constantine, Vortipor and Cuneglase) The five tyrants then may belong to the 560's-570's+. This is not to say that some of them did not start to rule before 560 and some may have died before the 570's. Gildas' unmentioned good king above Maglocunus then would have been Dutigern, who had fought against Ida's Angles. This would also solve the problem of why Gildas does not mention Arthur, who was of the old generation who had fought at Badon and was probably just a northern local war leader.

Of course, the records above state only that Ida began to reign in 559 not that he hadn't arrived earlier. So we can postulate him arriving a few years before in the 550's. In another blog I will look at the British Kings then existing in Britain of this time in this new chronology. Perhaps it wasn't as dark an age as it seemed.

Defining the Dark Ages Part three: The Barbarian Conspiracy

2011-11-23T12:45:00.000Z

Between 360 and 366 Britain appears to rebuild it’s defences and has five years of relative peace before the Scots and Picts once more band together in 366/7, this time though in a more organized and planned way that may have also involved other Germanic peoples. This event is later called the `barbarian conspiracy’.

Valentinian I

By this time Valentinian was Emperor of Rome since 364. Valentinian had received reports that a combined force of Picts, Attacotti and Scots had killed Nectaridus (comes maritimi tractus) and overcome the dux Fullofaudes in Britain. As a consequence, Britain was in a state of anarchy. Here Ammianus tells us :

“It will be sufficient here to mention that at that time the Picts, who were divided into two nations, the Dicalidones and the Vecturiones, and likewise the Attacotti, a very warlike people, and the Scots were all roving over different parts of the country and committing great ravages. While the Franks and the Saxons who are on the frontiers of the Gauls were ravaging their country wherever they could effect an entrance by sea or land, plundering and burning, and murdering all the prisoners they could take”

The Dicalidones are obviously the Caledonians. Here we also have mention of the Saxons and Franks raiding the coasts of Gaul and Britain. That these two nations appear closely allied at this time becomes apparent when we examine the early settlements in Britain that show this Frankish influence in the archaeology of Kent.

Valentinian, alarmed by these reports, set out for Britain, sending Severus (comes domesticorum) ahead of him to investigate. Severus was not able to correct the situation and returned to the continent, meeting Valentinian at Amiens. Valentinian then sent Jovinus to Britain and promoted Severus to magister peditum. Jovinus though could not remedy the situation in Britain either so Theodosius (the elder) was sent.

In 368 Theodosius arrived with the Batavi, Heruli, Jovii and Victores legions, landing at Richborough, and proceeded to London. His initial expeditions restored order to southern Britain. Later he rallied the remaining troops which had originally been stationed in Britain. It was apparent that the units had lost their cohesiveness when Nectaridius and Fullofaudes had been defeated. At this time, Theodosius sent for Civilis to be installed as the new vicarius of the diocese, and Dulcitius, an additional general. Dulcitius was Dux Britanniarum in charge of the frontier troops called Litanei so was most likely based in York. Civilis would most likely have administered from London. Ammianus tells us directly of Theodosius’ campaign in Britain :

“But Theodosius, a general of very famous reputation, departed in high spirits from Augusta, which the ancients used to call Londinium, with an army which he had collected with great energy and skill; bringing a mighty aid to the embarrassed and disturbed fortunes of the Britons. His plan was to seek everywhere favourable situations for laying ambuscades for the barbarians; and to impose no duties on his troops of the performance of which he did not himself cheerfully set the example.

And in this way, while he performed the duties of a gallant soldier, and showed at the same time the prudence of an illustrious general, he routed and vanquished the various tribes in whom their past security had engendered an insolence which led them to attack the Roman territories: and he entirely restored the cities and the fortresses which through the manifold disasters of the time had been injured or destroyed, though they had been originally founded to secure the tranquillity of the country.”

In about 369 Dulcitius had to deal with the minor stirrings of another rebellion. This one had started at the instigation of one Valentinus, a brother in law of Maximinus who would later become Praetorian Prefect of Gaul. Valentinus had been exiled to Britain because of some unknown crime he had committed in Rome. Only the power of the evil Maximinus had saved him. Ammianus again directly tells us of Valentinus :

“A certain man named Valentine, in Valeria of Pannonia, a man of a proud spirit, the brother-in-law of Maximin, that wicked and cruel deputy, who afterwards became prefect, having been banished to Britain for some grave crime, and being a restless and mischievous beast, was eager for any kind of resolution or mischief, began to plot with great insolence against Theodosius, whom he looked upon as the only person with power to resist his wicked enterprise.

But while both openly and privately taking many precautions, as his pride and covetousness increased, he began to tamper with the exiles and the soldiers, promising them rewards sufficient to tempt them as far at least as the circumstances and his enterprise would permit.

But when the time for putting his attempt into execution drew near, the duke, who had received from some trustworthy quarter information of what was going on, being always a man inclined to a bold line of conduct, and resolutely bent on chastising crimes when detected, seized Valentine with a few of his accomplices who were most deeply implicated, and handed them over to the general Dulcitius to be put to death. But at the same time conjecturing the future, through that knowledge of the soldiers in which he surpassed other men, he forbade the institution of any examination into the conspiracy generally, lest if the fear of such an investigation should affect many, fresh troubles might revive in the province.”

These words of Ammianus tell us much more about Britain than meets the eye. We see that Britain is a common place for various exiles to be sent to. Valentinus is said to `tamper’ with the exiles. A better translation would probably be conspiring with them. How many exiles were in Britain? By this account quite a few. As exiles were not exactly the most pleasant of people it is no wonder Britain was a hot bed of rebellion. That Theodosius did not investigate the conspiracy further indicates he did not want the troubles caused by Paulas Catena re-enacted. Ammianus continues relating the work of Theodosius in Britain:

“After this he turned his attention to make many necessary amendments, feeling wholly free from any danger in such attempts, since it was plain that all his enterprises were attended by a propitious fortune. So he restored cities and fortresses, as we have already mentioned, and established stations and outposts on our frontiers; and he so completely recovered the province which had yielded subjection to the enemy, that through his agency it was again brought under the authority of its legitimate ruler, and from that time forth was called Valentia, by desire of the emperor, as a memorial of his success.

The Areans, a class of men instituted in former times, and of whom we have already made some mention in recording the acts of Constans, had now gradually fallen into bad practices, for which he removed them from their stations; in fact they had been undeniably convicted of yielding to the temptation of the great rewards which were given and promised to them, so as to have continually betrayed to the barbarians what was done among us. For their business was to traverse vast districts, and report to our generals the warlike movements of the neighbouring nations.

In this manner the affairs which I have already mentioned, and others like them, having been settled, he was summoned to the court, and leaving the provinces in a state of exultation, like another Furius Camillus or Papirius Cursor, he was celebrated everywhere for his numerous and important victories. He was accompanied by a large crowd of well-wishers to the coast, and crossing over with a fair wind, arrived at the emperor's camp, where he was received with joy and high praise, and appointed to succeed Valens Jovinus, who was commander of the cavalry.”

This part of Ammianus’ writings tell us of the mysterious frontier scouts or spies called Areans or Areani. As Ammianus makes clear, these spies had been bought off by the very barbarians (Picts or Scots) who they were supposed to be reporting on. They also tell us that Theodosius had left Britain in a fit and secure state. Something must have occurred in the next few years to change all this as within 13 years another revolt had shaken Britain and Europe to its core.

In 370 Valentinian continues to clean up northern Gaul and massacres one band of Saxon raiders who had stopped their plundering and agreed to go home and lend troops to Valentinian's armies. Unfortunately Valentinian double crossed them and ambushed the Saxons, murdering every last one. It was a lesson the Saxons never forgot as the Britons would eventually find out many years later.

Saint Ambrose

For about four to five years Britain was at relative peace again, but raiding must have re-started around 373/4 as at this time Valentinian sends three armies of Alamanni troops to Britain to reinforce the defences there. At the head of these armies are the kings Froamarius - given the title Tribune, Hortarius and Bitherides. The Irish HB tell us that at this time, ie when `Gratian and Aquitias’ were consuls of Rome, that the Saxons came to Britain in the time of Vortigern. The only time when these consuls were joint rulers was in 474 AD. This Alamannic event appears to be confused with the arrival of Saxons and Vortigern. It is made even more confusing when we find that Maximinus is now the Praetorian Prefect in Gaul, in charge of the administration of both Gaul and Britain, an `Overlord’ or `Super Lord’ in British terms and that in Milan his nemesis is one Sanctus Ambrosius. It remains only to say that these earlier traditions may have been mixed up with the later 5^th Century Vortigern and Ambrosius in the writings of later historians.

These Alamannic armies would have arrived in Kent at Rutupae or Richborough as it was later known. They would then have moved onto the north to re-enforce Hadrians wall. Some may have stayed in Kent to man Saxon shore forts and some may have headed to Wales to help against the Irish Scoti. These reinforcements appear to have had the desired affect as another short period of peace comes to Britain between 370 and 383.

By 375 Gratian was now Emperor of Rome and had many troubles to contend with. The Alamanni had continued to cause problems in Gaul and in 378 a major battle ended with 30,000 Alamanni dead, if Roman records are to be believed. Gratian had caused resentment in Rome by insulting some pagan traditions. The intolerance between Christianity and paganism was starting to grow. Under Gratian and his Bishop Ambrose state subsidies that funded many pagan activities were removed. This angered many Roman senators..

Gratian

In around 380 Magnus Maximus is made comes Britanniae, head of the armies in Britain. He then campaigned against the Picts and other tribes north of Hadrians wall. It is most likely that this is when Maximus must have subdued the Votadini once more and decided to move them to North Wales to counter the Irish Pictish threat. Or was it later when Constantine depleted the British Roman armies once more in 410 that the Votadini were sent to north Wales to reinforce the defences there?

Gratian again had to fight the Alammani in 383 and it was at this time that events in Britain once again led to the fall of a Roman emperor. Is it co-incidence that at the very time Gratian is fighting Alamannic armies in Gaul, Britain, recently reinforced with Alamannic armies, suddenly breaks out in revolt? This revolt is led by one Magnus Maximus, raised by his troops as emperor of the west. He then takes the armies from Britain, heads over to Gaul and within a short time kills Gratian and enlists the help of the grateful Alamanni in his attempts to seize power over the whole Roman empire. Maximus’s Magister Equitum Andragathius was a Goth. His Praetorian Prefect was one Euodius. It is obvious from these events that the Alamannic troops posted to Britain in 374 had assumed some sort of influence, enough to raise Maximus to power to help relieve their brothers in Gaul.

Next, Maximus and the last instalment before Britain becomes independent of Roman rule and enters the early medieval period otherwise known as the Dark Ages.

Images via Wikipedia Commons.

Book Review - King Arthur in Irish Pseudo-Historical Tradition

2011-11-15T10:20:00.000Z

Tyler Tichelaar of the Children of Arthur Blog has posted a very good review of my book King Arthur in Irish Pseudo-Historical Tradition here.

Mac Erca, the Irish Arthur, with the fairy woman Sheen.

Book Review: King Arthur's Children.

2011-11-08T19:30:00.015Z

Book Review by Dane Pestano

King Arthur's Children, A Study in Fiction and Tradition.

Tyler R. Tichelaar, Ph.D.

The Reflection of Camelot Series, Modern History Press, 2011

A new book by Tyler Tichelaar raises the important question of King Arthurs children; a subject not often discussed but essential to the study of Arthuriana. In this two hundred page book he seeks to present all the material concerning the possible children of Arthur in one work, from Welsh legends and French Romancers to Scottish Genealogies and modern novels. In this he nearly succeeds and indeed he goes further by including the treatment of Arthur's children in late medieval and modern works of fiction. The original sources for Arthur’s children are as scant as they are for Arthur himself so Tyler’s undertaking is a difficult one to start with.

Tyler first discusses the early references to the children Gwydre, Amr and llacheu. Gwydre, mentioned in the tenth century or later Welsh fairy tales, now called the Mabinogian, as a son of Arthur takes first billing and Tyler compares this character with that of the Celtic tales of Gwri and considers the possibilities that they are one and the same. It is an interesting comparison with some merit. The story of Gwydre and Gwri are also compared to that of Mordred with the suggestion that Mordred’s tales may have borrowed parts of their stories, adding perhaps a little too much to the pot of confusion early on.

Next up is Amr, the earliest known reference to a child of Arthur from the ninth century Historia Brittonum. Tyler points out the various versions of the name, Amhar being one from the later Mabinogian and details the various meanings of the names suggested by scholars with some surprising results. He then discusses the treatment of Amr in various works including the HB, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain and of course the Mabinogian. It is a very good look at the existing evidence but again Tyler seeks to link these tales with those of Mordred, as though all leads take us back to this character, who essentially is not really a son of Arthur at all.

The next chapter concerns LLacheu for whom there is a bit more information and meat for Tyler to get stuck into seeing as Llacheu is mentioned in the Black Book of Carmarthen, the Mabinogian and by French Romancers. It’s a very good look at the sources and for a discussion of the meanings of the name and its forms with again some surprising and interesting information. LLacheus life and death are discussed and his links to ravens and death pointed out:

I was there where Llacheu fell,

Arthurs son renowned in song,

When ravens flocked on the gore.

Further discussion on the French links to the developing story of Llacheu are explored and the whole chapter is a great introduction to this enigmatic son of Arthur with of course the now familiar comparison of his stories with those of Mordreds. Perhaps the real title of the book should have been Mordred and the Children of King Arthur as part two of the book then discusses the main character of Mordred and the legends and tales surrounding him.

Part II of the book, and chapters 4-10, then discusses Mordred, the most famous of Arthurs associates and the most confused in the medieval mind. Tyler does a great job of explaining all the ideas, name variations, possible meanings and so on concerning Mordred but may perhaps have left out one obvious one for the form Mordred itself which appears to mean murderer in French/German so would explain why he acquired this version of the name, which as Tyler points out originated with the French Romancers. Whether the tenth century mention of Medrawt and Arthur in the Welsh Annals (539, Battle of Camlann) is contemporary or was a later interpolation to the annals adds confusion as to whether Mordred was known before Geoffrey of Monmouth. Tyler also points out that Mordred is usually seen as Arthurs nephew and explores the various sources for this assertion and their treatment of Mordred and his relationship with Arthur and his wife Guinevere. He also points out that it is not until the later works such as the vulgate Mort Artu and the Huth Merlin that Mordred appears as Arthur’s son.

After the introduction to Mordred, the sources and their merits, Tyler next looks at Mordred’s character in the sense of his synonymous link with being traitorous towards Arthur, not only in the battle of Camlann and his treatment by Geoffrey of Monmouth but by his association with Guinevere and the subsequent abduction tales concerning her and his desire to marry her. Here then we have a discussion of the abduction motif in Celtic and other legends and of course in Arthurian Romance and Welsh tales. This leads onto the love triangle between Mordred, Arthur and Guinevere and not forgetting the other players such as Lancelot and Kay.

Interesting in this seventh chapter is the comparison of the abduction and love triangle with those of Irish tales, such as that of Midir and Etain and he suggests that this tale may be the earliest source for the tales of Modred and Arthurs fight for Guinevere. Again, Irish myths, such as that of Lugh and Balor of the Evil Eye and those of Cuchulain are suggested as an early influence on the story of Arthurs and Mordreds conflict, with some merit. All in all this chapter concerning the love triangle is an excellent look at the problem and their sources but perhaps misses out the evidence of the Modena Cathedral where an early version of the Arthurian love triangle and abduction may be depicted. A discussion of this would have been welcome.

The eighth chapter takes us onto the infamous Battle of Camlann in which Arthur and Mordred are said to have died. For me, a very interesting point here is that “In the Didot Perceval is the curious statement that Arthur’s last battle, fought against Mordred, took place in Ireland”. He suggests that this may be due to the Irish influences that appear to permeate Arthur’s legends. Quite. Again, this chapter is full of interesting material including a fourteenth century chronicle assertion that Arthur lived ten years after Camlann!!

From here on in things get even better as Tyler heads up to Scotland in chapter 9 to discuss the Scottish and Gaelic material concerning Mordred and Arthur. As to be expected, he makes a great introduction to the subject, discussing the earliest sources first and the problems inherent in them, mainly due to these sources being missing now and most of the current material only dating to the fourteenth century. He also discusses the attachment of Uther as Arthurs father by Geofrey of Monmouth due to the Arthur mabuter entry in the HB suggesting this merely meant Arthur the terrible or some such. The Scottish material being late is suspect but the discussion is interesting in the differing angles the Scots held of the conflict between Mordred and Arthur, suggesting Mordred was seen in a better light than Arthur by the later Scots.

Next we move onto Mordred's sons which brings in a discussion of Constantine (who took power after Arthur) as well, as he is linked in by Geoffrey of Monmouth who states that Constantine went to war with Mordred's sons after the battle of Camlann. Again a very interesting discussion which leads onto a chapter concerning Constantine himself. This chapter was very interesting for me as Mac Erca is said in Irish tales to have sired Constantine and Mac Erca, as I have suggested, was the Irish version of Arthur. Tyler shows how Constantine was seen to be closely related to Arthur in various sources but never as his son.

Part III, chapters 13 to 14 move onto Arthur’s descendants and the connections with the English Royal family and discuss Arthur, Cerdic and Vortigern. So plenty of meat here for Arthurian fans and more meat for me when I learn that there is a very late Scots tradition that Arthur married a daughter of the king of the Franks. Mac Erca is also said to have married the daughter of the king of the Franks. In the Irish tales this appears to be Clovis’s daughter. Here in the Scots tales she is said be a be a daughter of Childebert (ruled 511-558) called Elizabeth. In this section then an examination of the Scots Campbell material is undertaken – Smervie and the Clan Campbell and again it is a very interesting look at the names, sources and possibility of Smervie being a son of Arthur with some surprising twists.

Part IV moves on to the forgotten and fictional children which includes a discussion of children associated with Arthur in the middle ages and the treatment of Arthurs children in modern fiction. This discussion starts with possible sons of Arthur called Nougoy and Nennue and their dismissal from consideration when the evidence is explored. It then moves onto various foreign sources for further inventions. The discussion of Arthur’s children in modern fiction held no interest for me but others may find it useful.

The book ends with a conclusion and an appendix concerning Mordred and Modron. Overall it is an excellent, well written book and essential reading for those who would like to study the subject in more depth. Only one of Arthur’s possible children, Baedo, Queen of an early Visigothic King, Reccared, appears to be missing but that is understandable considering it is a very late Spanish tradition probably founded on nothing more than variations of Bado's name (Badon, Baedu etc) being similar to the battle of Badon and hence she is linked to Arthur.

Website for book is here

Tylers Blog Children of Arthur here.

If you would like your book reviewed please contact me here to send your book.
Review Copyright Dane Pestano 2011.

Kells wants its famous book back, but Trinity says no.

2011-09-10T13:42:00.000+01:00

The town of Kells in Co. Meath wants its book back ... the famous Book of Kells. A campaign has got under way to secure the return of one of the four volumes of the famous priceless works of art.

See full story on The Independent IE
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/kells-wants-its-famous-book-back-but-trinity-says-no-2861725.html

Wikipedia Book of Kells:
The Book of Kells (Irish: Leabhar Cheanannais) (Dublin, Trinity College Library, MS A. I. (58), sometimes known as the Book of Columba) is an illuminated manuscript Gospel book in Latin, containing the four Gospels of the New Testament together with various prefatory texts and tables. It was created by Celtic monks ca. 800 or slightly earlier. The text of the Gospels is largely drawn from the Vulgate, although it also includes several passages drawn from the earlier versions of the Bible known as the Vetus Latina. It is a masterwork of Western calligraphy and represents the pinnacle of Insular illumination. It is also widely regarded as Ireland's finest national treasure.
The illustrations and ornamentation of the Book of Kells surpass that of other Insular Gospel books in extravagance and complexity. The decoration combines traditional Christian iconography with the ornate swirling motifs typical of Insular art. Figures of humans, animals and mythical beasts, together with Celtic knots and interlacing patterns in vibrant colours, enliven the manuscript's pages. Many of these minor decorative elements are imbued with Christian symbolism and so further emphasise the themes of the major illustrations.
The manuscript today comprises 340 folios and, since 1953, has been bound in four volumes. The leaves are on high-quality calf vellum, and the unprecedentedly elaborate ornamentation that covers them includes ten full-page illustrations and text pages that are vibrant with decorated initials and interlinear miniatures and mark the furthest extension of the anti-classical and energetic qualities of Insular art. The Insular majuscule script of the text itself appears to be the work of at least three different scribes. The lettering is in iron gall ink, and the colours used were derived from a wide range of substances, many of which were imports from distant lands.
The manuscript takes its name from the Abbey of Kells that was its home for centuries. Today, it is on permanent display at the Trinity College Library, Dublin. The library usually displays two of the current four volumes at a time, one showing a major illustration and the other showing typical text pages.

Archaeologists dig at Pillar of Eliseg near Llangollen

2011-09-07T14:12:00.003+01:00

Archaeologists are launching a new dig to try to unearth the secrets of a 9th Century stone monument on a prehistoric mound. See BBC news story here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-14774061

From Wikipedia: The Pillar of Eliseg also known as Elise's Pillar or Croes Elisedd in Welsh, stands near Valle Crucis Abbey, Denbighshire, Wales, at grid reference SJ204442. It was erected by Cyngen ap Cadell (died 855), king of Powys in honour of his great-grandfather Elisedd ap Gwylog. The form Eliseg found on the pillar is thought to be a mistake by the carver of the inscription.
The Latin inscription not only mentions several individuals described in the Historia Britonum, but also complements the information presented in that text. A generally accepted translation of this inscription, one of the longest surviving inscriptions from pre-Viking Wales, is as follows:

† Concenn son of Cattell, Cattell son of Brochmail, Brochmail son of Eliseg, Eliseg son of Guoillauc.

† And that Concenn, great-grandson of Eliseg, erected this stone for his great-grandfather Eliseg.

† The same Eliseg, who joined together the inheritance of Powys . . . throughout nine (years?) out of the power of the Angles with his sword and with fire.

† Whosoever shall read this hand-inscribed stone, let him give a blessing on the soul of Eliseg.

† This is that Concenn who captured with his hand eleven hundred acres [4.5 km²] which used to belong to his kingdom of Powys . . . and which . . . . . . the mountain

[the column is broken here. One line, possibly more, lost]

. . . the monarchy . . . Maximus . . . of Britain . . . Concenn, Pascent, Maun, Annan.

† Britu son of Vortigern, whom Germanus blessed, and whom Sevira bore to him, daughter of Maximus the king, who killed the king of the Romans.

† Conmarch painted this writing at the request of king Concenn.

† The blessing of the Lord be upon Concenn and upon his entire household, and upon the entire region of Powys until the Day of Judgement.

The Pillar was thrown down by the Roundheads during the English Civil War and a grave under it opened. Edward Lhuyd examined the Pillar and copied the inscription in 1696. The lower half disappeared but the upper half was re-erected in 1779. The original inscription is now illegible.

Was Magnus Maximus the Superbus Tyrannus of Gildas?

2011-09-02T22:50:00.001+01:00

Professor Guy Halsall author of the Historian on the Edge blog makes the extraordinary suggestion that Magnus Maximus may have been the Superbus Tyrannus of Gildas' History of Britain written in the early sixth century as part of the De Excidio. Here is a quote from his post on his lecture from Feb 2011 on the subject of Northern Britain and the Fall of the Roman Empire :

"Some of you may know that in my book on the Barbarians Migrations, I argued that it was Maximus who was behind the settlement of Saxons in Britain, as foederati: that he was the superbus tyrannus mentioned by Gildas in his De Excidio. I made this argument on the basis of a lengthy discussion of Gildas’ historical section, its structure and the parallelism within that. I don’t have time to rehearse all of that argument here, but I do want to add something of a lengthy foot-note to it, not least because I was put onto this tack by Alex Woolf, who suggested that one might find the key to all this by looking at Orosius. So I did look at Orosius, and indeed at everyone else in the late fourth and fifth centuries who wrote about Magnus Maximus. Sadly I didn’t find any clear textual borrowings or anything really nice such as Rufinus referring to Maximus as a superbus tyrannus or anything like that. What did emerge, though, is in some ways more interesting. And that is that it is really very difficult to see where Gildas got his picture of Maximus from.

Gildas is unremittingly hostile to Maximus: cunning rather than virtuous; attaching areas to his ‘kingdom [or rather Empire] of wickedness with the nets of perjury and lying’; his was a ‘wicked empire’; he ‘raged madly’, engaged in ‘appalling acts of daring’ and had ‘his evil head cut off’. Not surprising, if I’m right, that this tyrannus, referred to anonymously as supradictus tyrannus in De Excidio 14, the start of the ‘Northern Section’, should be described (again without his name) as superbus and infaustus in De Excidio 23, near the start of the so-called ‘Eastern Section’. Interesting, though hardly decisive, for my case is the emphasis on Maximus’ consilium that one finds if one reads through the contemporary and near-contemporary accounts and which might connect with the fact that it is indeed the council of the ‘Proud Tyrant’ which decides to enrol the Saxons in Britain’s defence."

There is some superficial evidence from the Historia Brittonum (HB) that the Saxons may have been invited over earlier in around 374/5. This comes from the chronological information within the HB:

Guorthigirnus suscepit eos benigne et tradidit eis insulam, quae in lingua eorum vocatur Tanet, Brittannico sermone Ruoihm. regnante Gratiano secundo cum. Equitio Saxones a Guorthigirno suscepti sunt anno cccxlvii post passionem Christi.

Valentinian

Here we can see the statement that Vortigern invited the Saxons at the time of the consuls Gratianus and Aequitius. This was in 374/5. The text gives the date as well, 347, post passion of Christ, which is 347+28 = 375. This was actually the time when the Emperor Valentinian sent three armies of Alamannic troops to Britain to re-enforce the defences there. At the head of these armies are the kings Froamarius - given the title Tribune, Hortarius and Bitherides. The Irish HB tell us the same story as the Latin above, ie when `Gratian and Aquitias’ were consuls of Rome the Saxons came to Britain in the time of Vortigern. The only time when these consuls were joint rulers was in 374 AD. This Alamannic event appears to be confused with the arrival of Saxons and Vortigern. It is made even more confusing when we find that one Maximinus is now the Praetorian Prefect in Gaul, in charge of the administration of both Gaul and Britain, an `Overlord’ or `Super Lord’ in British terms and that in Milan his nemesis is one Sanctus Ambrosius. It remains only to say that these earlier traditions may have been mixed up with the later 5^th Century Vortigern and Ambrosius in the writings of later historians.

These factors though all took place long before Magnus Maximus entered Britain in about 380, although he may have been in the army of Theodosius the Elder when he cleared up the barbarian conspiracy of the late 360's. Having looked at the chronology of Gildas concerning Maximus and the Superbus tyrannus I find that too much time has elapsed before the superbus tyrannus is mentioned and therefore there can be no way he can be Maximus. Here is Gildas, chapter 13 and 14.

Magnus Maximus
13. At length also, new races of tyrants sprang up, in terrific numbers, and the island, still bearing its Roman name, but casting off her institutes and laws, sent forth among the Gauls that bitter scion of her own planting Maximus, with a great number of followers, and the ensigns of royalty, which he bore without decency and without lawful right, but in a tyrannical manner, and amid the disturbances of the seditious soldiery. He, by cunning arts rather than by valour, attaching to his rule, by perjury and false hood, all the neighbouring towns and provinces, against the Roman state, extended one of his wings to Spain, the other to Italy, fixed the seat of his unholy government at Treves, and so furiously pushed his rebellion against his lawful emperors that he drove one of them out of Rome, and caused the others to terminate his holy life. Trusting to these successful attempts, he not long after lost his accursed head before the walls of Aquileia, whereas he had before cut off the crowned heads of almost all the world.
14. After this, Britain is left deprived of all her soldiery and armed bands, of her cruel governors, and of the flower of her youth, who went with Maximus, but never again returned; and utterly ignorant as she was of the art of war, groaned in amazement for many years under the cruelty of two foreign nations-the Scots from the north-west, and the Picts from the north.

It is a full ten paragraphs later, and by extension quite a bit of time, that the Superbus Tyrannus is mentioned :

late medieval depiction of Vortigern
23. Then all the councillors, together with that the Proud Tyrant (Superbus Tyrannus), the British king, were so blinded, that, as a protection to their country, they sealed its doom by inviting in among them (like wolves into the sheep-fold), the fierce and impious Saxons, a race hateful both to God and men, to repel the invasions of the northern nations. Nothing was ever so pernicious to our country, nothing was ever so unlucky. What palpable darkness must have enveloped their minds-darkness desperate and cruel! Those very people whom, when absent, they dreaded more than death itself, were invited to reside, as one may say, under the selfsame roof. Foolish are the princes, as it is said, of Thafneos, giving counsel to unwise Pharaoh. A multitude of whelps came forth from the lair of this barbaric lioness, in three cyuls, as they call them, that is, in three ships of war, with their sails wafted by the wind and with omens and prophecies favourable, for it was foretold by a certain soothsayer among them, that they should occupy the country to which they were sailing three hundred years, and half of that time, a hundred and fifty years, should plunder and despoil the same. They first landed on the eastern side of the island, by the invitation of the unlucky king, and there fixed their sharp talons, apparently to fight in favour of the island, but alas! more truly against it.
Their mother-land, finding her first brood thus successful, sends forth a larger company of her wolfish offspring, which sailing over, join themselves to their bastard-born comrades. From that time the germ of iniquity and the root of contention planted their poison amongst us, as we deserved, and shot forth into leaves and branches. The barbarians being thus introduced as soldiers into the island, to encounter, as they falsely said, any dangers in defence of their hospitable entertainers, obtain an allowance of provisions, which, for some time being plentifully bestowed, stopped their doggish mouths. Yet they complain that their monthly supplies are not furnished in sufficient abundance, and they industriously aggravate each occasion of quarrel, saying that unless more liberality is shown them, they will break the treaty and plunder the whole island. In a short time, they follow up their threats with deeds.


St Ambrose

So the parts detailing the Superbus Tyrannus, translated into Brittonic by the seventh to eighth century as Vortigern are seen to have occurred much later in time and so could not possibly relate to Maximus. I have made a suggestion above that if anyone was meant in the HB it was Maximinus the PP of Gaul who at the time of 374/5 would have been responsible for bringing Germanic troops to Britain on the orders of Valentinian. That he had a nemesis in St. Ambrose is even more compelling as Vortigern's nemesis in the HB was Ambrosius. The only other person that may have been responsible for bringing Saxon troops into Britain would have been Magnus Magnentius whose story is told in this blog. It would be interesting to read the book The Barbarian Migrations by Prof Halsall to see how he came to these startling conclusions concerning Maximus and the Superbus.

All images from wikipedia commons.

Radio Interview 26th August, thoughts.

2011-08-31T12:11:00.000+01:00

Discussion on radio concerning my book King Arthur In Irish Pseudo-Historical Tradition

Radio interview below.

King Arthur was not English or Welsh but Irish? by Inishowencommunityradio on Mixcloud

Well, the interview on Inishowen Conmmunity Radio was certainly a difficult one, not because of the questions asked, but of how to couch the replies when we are dealing on one hand with pseudo history/mythology and on the other with real history. I think in future I will have to point out the distinction between the two. It's also difficult when I am introduced as claiming that Arthur was Irish, when in fact I only ask the question. This is to be expected though when people have not read the book.

Mac Erca with the fairy woman Sheen

Yes, Mac Erca in mythology was the ruler of Ailech and the Grianan of Ailech would fall into that assumption, but in reality he is never associated with the Grianan, but with the house of Cletech on the Boyne. Furthermore, the O'Neills didnt acquire the Grianan until the late seventh century when they defeated the Cenel Conaill in battle as pointed out by Brian Lacey in his work on the O'Neills of the North. However, as what we know of the late fifth to mid sixth century was retrospectively added to the annals of Ireland it's quite possible the sons of Eoghan may have occupied the Grianan but then lost it again to the Cenel Conaill in the late sixth century.

The other difficulty, as pointed out in the book, is that Muircertach Mac Erca is a merged character , made up of the historical Mac Erce mentioned in the seventh century by Adamnan and in an early Irish MS called the book of Conn of the Hundred battles where he is called by the diminutive Mac Ercene and Muircertach Mac Muiredach, a member of the northern O'Neills in their genealogies. In the book I make this distinction so in effect we dont really know if Mac Erca was of the O'Neills at all or whether they just aquired or interpolated him into their clan by merging him with Muircertach Mac Muiredach. This would then beg the question, who was Mac Erca? We do know he had a father called Muiredach but thats as far as it goes. Whether this Muiredach was a son of Eoghan is unknown.

The conversation covered some of the links with the similarities of the two stories, the Merlin type character Saigin the Druid and St Cairnech, who was closely associated with Mac Erca, the name of Mac Erca's wife, which translates into Welsh as Gwinau-verch, the story of his conquests of places known to have been conquored by Arthur, the dates of their death etc etc.

I think the people of Inishowen would have been left wondering what all the fuss was about when I could not give them a definate answer that Arthur was Irish and from that place, other than in mythology and Pseudo-history. How does one explain all this in a ten minute interview? Should I have concentrated on the mythology and left the real history or was I right to try and mention both in shuch a short time?

Listening to the interview for the first time today 31/8, I think I didnt actually do that bad.

Bid to save O'Doherty Castle

2011-08-31T11:49:00.007+01:00

A campaign has been launched to raise €120,000 to "stabilise and preserve" O’Doherty Castle at Carrickabraghy on the Isle of Doagh, Inishowen, Donegal Ireland. See here for full story

If you would like to join or support the society – whether you are at home or abroad - you can contact them on www.carrickabraghy.com , +35374- 9378468, or at Carrickabraghy Restoration Society, Isle of Doagh, Inishowen, Co Donegal.

The letters of Cassiodorus to Clovis, King of the Franks, late 5th early 6th Century

2011-08-26T17:04:00.019+01:00


Cassiodorus

Letters of Cassiodorus

Addressed as Luduin by Theoderic via his secretary Cassiodorus , these letters to Clovis (Chlodovechus) would certainly confound etymologists who would be at a loss to explain why the Romans put an ‘n’ at the end of his name instead of a ‘c’. It’s certainly a puzzle.

The letters appear to have been written in the late 5th century when Clovis defeated the Alans and the early sixth century around 506/7 when Clovis was intent on attacking Alaric the Goth.

The first letter concerns Clovis' request for a harper and is written to Boetius. The other letters are directed at Clovis himself. The letters in which Clovis is mention are these. (But I am only presenting three.)

Theodoric marches his troops against (508),
A harper sent to, chosen by Boethius, (below)
Congratulated on victory over Alamanni, (below)
Letter dissuading from war with Alaric II; (below)
Called 'regius juvenis' by Theodoric,
His overthrow of the Alamannic kingdom.

All the letters can be found here. By Thomas Hodgkin.

40. KING THEODORIC TO BOETIUS THE PATRICIAN

'The King of the Franks [Clovis] has asked us to send him a harper. We felt that in you lay our best chance of complying with his request, because you, being such a lover of music yourself, will be able to introduce us to the right man.'

Coin of Theoderic

Reflections on the nature of music. She is the Queen of the senses; when she comes forth from her secret abiding place all other thoughts are cast out. Her curative influence on the soul. The five tones: the Dorian influencing to modesty and purity; the Phrygian to fierce combat; the Aeolian to tranquillity and slumber; the Ionian (Jastius), which sharpens the intellect of the dull and kindles the desire of heavenly things; the Lydian, which soothes the soul oppressed with too many cares. We distinguish the highest, middle, and lowest in each tone, obtaining thus in all fifteen tones of artificial music. The diapason is collected from all, and unites all their virtues.

Classical instances of music:

Orpheus.

Amphion.

Musaeus.

The human voice as an instrument of music. Oratory and Poesy as branches of the art. The power of song: Ulysses and the Sirens. David the author of the Psalter, who by his melody three (?) times drove away the evil spirit from Saul. The lyre is called 'chorda,' because it so easily moves the hearts (corda) of men. As the diadem dazzles by the variegated lustre of its gems, so the lyre with its divers sounds.

The lyre, the loom of the Muses. Mercury, the inventor of the lyre, is said to have derived the idea of it from the harmony of the spheres. This astral music, apprehended by reason alone, is said to form one of the delights of heaven. 'If philosophers had placed that enjoyment not in sweet sounds but in the contemplation of the Creator, they would have spoken fitly; for there is truly joy without end, eternity abiding for ever without weariness, and

the mere contemplation of the Divinity produces such happiness that nothing can surpass it. This Beingfurnishes the true immortality; this heaps delight upon delight; and as outside of Him no creature can exist,so without Him changeless happiness cannot be 'We have indulged ourselves in a pleasant digression, because it is always agreeable to talk of learning with the learned; but be sure to get us that Citharoedus, who will go forth like another Orpheus.

Clovis

41. KING THEODORIC TO LUDUIN [CLOVIS], KING OF THE FRANKS.

Clovis has stirred up the nation of the Franks, 'prisca aetate residem,' to new and successful encounters. 'It is a memorable triumph that the impetuous Alaman should be struck with such terror as even to beg for his life. Let it suffice that that King with all the pride of his race should have fallen: let it suffice that an innumerable people should have been doomed either to the sword or to slavery.'

4. KING THEODORIC TO LUDUIN KING OF THE FRANKS.

'The affinities of kings ought to keep their subjects from the plague of war. We are grieved to hear of the paltry causes which are giving rise to rumours of war between you and our son Alaric, rumours which gladden the hearts of the enemies of both of you. Let me say with all frankness, but with all affection, just what I think: "It is the act of a passionate man to get his troops ready for action at the first embassy which he sends." Instead of that refer the matter to our arbitration. It would be a delight to me to choose men capable of mediating between you. What would you yourselves think of me if I could hear unmoved of your murderous intentions towards one another? Away with this conflict, in which one of you will probably be utterly destroyed. Throw away the sword which you wield for my humiliation. By what right do I thus threaten you? By the right of a father and a friend. He who shall despise this advice of ours will have to reckon us and our friends as his adversaries. 'I send two ambassadors to you, as I have to my son Alaric, and hope that they may be able so to arrange matters that no alien malignity may sow the seeds of dissension between you, and that your nations, which under your fathers have long enjoyed the blessings of peace, may not now be laid waste by sudden collision. You ought to believe him who, as you know, has rejoiced in your prosperity. No true friend is he who launches his associates, unwarned, into the headlong dangers of war.'

In a subsequent letter, not addressed to Clovis, the 40 year old Clovis is called a 'regius juvenis' by Theoderic. Some have puzzled at this but the term according to the Medieval Online Latin database is as follows:

II. Subst.: jŭvĕnis , is, comm., one who is in the flower of his or her age (mostly of persons older than adolescents and younger than seniores, i. e. between twenty and forty years), a young person, a young man, a young woman.

This confirms then that Clovis was probably still under or about the age of 40 to be still called Juvenis by Theoderic.This would then be 505/6AD

King Arthur's round table may have been found by archaeologists in Scotland

2011-08-26T15:06:00.006+01:00

This is only supposed to date back to the 1620's but this article claims references to it go back much further.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8724183/King-Arthurs-round-table-may-have-been-found-by-archaeologists-in-Scotland.html

Dark Age TV - Britain AD by Dr. Francis Pryor

2011-08-25T18:13:00.003+01:00

Defining the Dark Ages Part two - The rebellions

2011-08-25T13:38:00.034+01:00


Constantius II

By 350 the emperor Constans was dead and a usurper, the half Briton, half Frankish Magnentius was in power in the Western Provinces. Constantius II was in power in the East. In Britain Flavious Martinus was the Vicarius; a governor in charge of the civil structure of the provinces. He was well respected by Britain’s nobility and was deemed to be fair and honest in his dealing with them. Ammianus[1] a Roman historian of the time tells us of Martinus that he was:

“..a most just ruler, who had dared to lighten the unhappy lot of many…Martinus, who was governing those provinces as a substitute for the prefects, deeply deplored the woes suffered by innocent men..”

This shows that Martinus, although a nice guy had no real power. He was only a substitute for the role of Praetorian Prefect and this had profound affects for his authority after the revolt of Magnentius was put down.

Magnentius[2], called a barbarian by writers of the time[a], was born in Samarobriva (Amiens, north eastern France) of a British father and a Frankish mother. He was said to have been tolerant of both paganism and Christianity. He worked his way up the Roman ranks until he commanded the palatine legions - the Loviani and Herculiani seniores, personal legions of the Emperor Constans himself. He was raised to power in Autun when the Roman army became disgruntled with the behaviour of Constans and had him executed, after he had fled, near the pyrenees by one Gaiso (Consul in 351).

Magnentius must have visited Britain sometime in February 350AD, probably to raise taxes for his forthcoming war and to strip the country of some of its legions. He stripped Britain of all movable troops and emptied the frontier garrisons of Gaul to swell his ranks. For Magnentius, this was just the beginning of his claim for total power of the Roman world. He collected the armies of Britain and Gaul and called on his fellow Germanic Franks and Saxons plus Spaniards in support and started on his march first towards Trier then to Rome which capitulated in his favour. Magnentius tried to get recognition from Constantius as the rightful Emperor of the Western Empire but this was refused by Constantius, understandable, as the Flavian dynasty had held sway for 50 years since Contantine I.

Magnentius,
the first Romano Briton to usurp power.

In response to all this Constantius II invited Germanic tribes to cross the Rhine and enter Gaul. This was a spoiling tactic to hold up Magnentius and was to have far reaching effects. Magnentius though, due to his Frankish allies was able to bring some control to the Barbarians invited in by Constantius. Constantius however employed many more Germanic barbarians to swell his ranks. Magnentius for his part recruited Keltoi and Galatai. But his most enthusiastic followers, according to the emperor Julian himself:

"..were by virtue of their ties of kinship, Franks or Saxons, the most warlike of whom live beyond the Rhine and along the shore of the Western Sea." (Or. 1. 34c-d).

In 351AD these two massive armies met at the Battle of Mursa Major in present day Croatia and in the ensuing battle and stalemate 52,000 men lost their lives. With such huge losses the Roman armies were seriously depleted and it would take a couple of years before Constantine could try again. But by 353 he had successfully beaten Magnentius at Mons Seleucus in southern France.

One Gerontius (Keraint, Gereint) was Magnentius’ Comes Britanarium, commander of the armies. Gerontius was a Briton and shows the ties Magnentius had with the provinces and armies of Britain who had probably helped him to power in 350. Could this Gerontius be the Keraint ap Genedos of the Welsh genealogies? If so, according to Welsh myth, he set his relatives up in positions of power in Britain. To Tegid (Tacitus) was given the far north, his descendent was Cunedda. To his other brother Eudaff he gives Wales. Keraints daughter Faustus marries Magnentius. Eudaffs daughter, Sevira marrries Magnus Maximus. Eudaff may have been Magnus Maximus' Praetorian Prefect Eudosius. To his first son Cynan he gives Dumnonia and Armorica later. Cynan becomes Maximus' Magister Militum probably in control of Armorica. Cynans daughter Strada marries Coel Hen. All fascinating myth but unprovable[3]. Only this tentative tie with Gerontius, Comes Britanarium in 350 remains.

With a much reduced army in Britain it would not be long before the Barbarian tribes to the north and Scoti in Ireland realized the position. They don’t seem to have pushed for any major offensive during the time of Magnentius though. Perhaps when he visited Britain in 350 he had paid them off and made a treaty with them as Julian (who becomes Caesar of Gaul and Britain in 355) mentions a treaty that was made with the Scots and Picts later when he complains in about 359/60 that they have broken it.

After the death of Magnentius in 353 his general Gerontius is tortured then exiled but to where is unknown. Britain, the country, is still a rich and prosperous one but is about to feel the wrath of the Emperor Constantius.

By 353 the stirring of more hostile nations was starting to take place. The Huns in the east had started to make their way west and the Irish had started to become united enough under strong leaders to begin raiding western Britain. The movement of the Huns started a domino effect pushing Germanic tribes westwards in panic, spilling over into Roman lands.

354AD was a momentous one in the history of Britain, for in this year the Roman nobility of Britain was decimated, it’s weak but honorable Governor Martinus dead by his own hand and by the end of the year this had caused the country to rebel under one Carausius II. These events were enough to weaken the internal structure of the country to such a degree that within a few years the Picts and Scoti were once more brave enough to raid in large numbers and make enough success of it that legions from abroad were needed to put down the troubles. So what led to this state of affairs? One Paulus Catenus, probably one of the most evil men ever to have entered Britain. He was sent by Constantius to seek out those who may have supported Magnentius and return them to Rome. When he arrived in 354 and found the weak governor Martinus in charge he went vastly beyond his remit and proceeded to accuse and implicate practically the whole of British Roman nobility. Poor Martinus looked on in horror as innocent as well as perhaps guilty were arrested and thrown into chains. From which custom Paulus acquired the nickname Catenus – The Chain. For the full horror of the story we have Ammanius to thank and here it is :

The Torture of the Followers of Megnentius

1. While this was happening in the East, Constantius was passing the winter at Arelate, where he gave entertainment in the theatre and the circus with ostentatious magnificence. Then, on the 10th of October, which completed the thirtieth year of his reign, giving greater weight to his arrogance and accepting and accepting every false or doubtful charge as evident and proven, among other atrocities he tortured Gerontius, a count of the party of Magnentius, and visited him with the sorrow of exile.

2.And, as an ailing body is apt to be affected even by slight annoyances, so his narrow and sensitive mind, thinking that every sound indicated something done or planned at the expense of his safety, made his victory lamentable through the murder of innocent men.

3. For if anyone of the military commanders or ex-officials, or one of high rank in his own community, was accused even by rumour of having favoured the party of the emperor’s opponent, he was loaded with chains and dragged about like a wild beast. And whether a personal enemy pressed the charge or no one at all, as though it were enough that he had been named, informed against, or accused at all, he was condemned to death, or his property confiscated, or he was banished to some desert island.

4. Moreover his harsh cruelty, whenever the majesty of the empire was said to be insulted, and his angry passion and unfounded suspicions were increased by the bloodthirsty flattery of his courtiers, who exaggerated everything that happened and pretended to be greatly troubled by the thought of an attempt on the life of a prince on whose safety, as on a thread, they hypocritically declared that the condition of the whole world depended.

5. And he is even said to have given orders that no one who had ever been punished for these or similar offences should be given a new trial after a writ of condemnation had once been presented to him in the usual manner, which even the most inexorable emperors were commonly allowed. And this fatal fault of cruelty, which in others sometimes grew less with advancing age, in his case became more violent, since a group of flatterers intensified his stubborn resolution.

6. Prominent among these was the state secretary Paulus, a native of Spain, a kind of viper, whose countenance concealed his character, but who was extremely clever in scenting out hidden means of dangers for others. When he had been sent to Britain to fetch some officers who had dared to conspire with Magentius, since they could make no resistance he autocratically exceeded his instructions and, like a flood, suddenly overwhelmed the fortunes of many, making his away amid manifold slaughter and destruction, imprisoning freeborn men and even degrading some with handcuffs ; as a matter of fact, he patched together many accusations with utter disregard of the truth, and to him was due an impious crime, which fixed eternal stain upon the time of Constantius.

7. Martinus, who was governing those provinces as a substitute for the prefects, deeply deplored the woes suffered by innocent men ;and after often begging that those who were free from any reproach should be spared, when he failed in his appeal he threatened to retire, in the hope that, at least in through fear of this, that malevolent man-hunter might finally cease to expose to open danger men naturally given to peace.

8. Paulus thought that this would interfere with his profession, and being a formidable artist in devising complications, for which reason he was nicknamed “The Chain,” since the substitute continued to defend those whom he was appointed to govern, Paulus involved even him in the common peril, threatening to bring him also in chains to the emperor’s court, along with the tribunes and many others. Thereupon Martinus, alarmed at this threat, and thinking swift death imminent, drew his sword and attacked that same Paulus. But since the weakness of his hand prevented him from dealing a fatal blow, he plunged the sword which he had already drawn into his own side. And by that ignominious death there passed from life a most just ruler, who had dared to lighten the unhappy lot of many.

9. After perpetrating these atrocious crimes, Paulus, stained with blood, returned to the emperor’s camp, bringing many with him many men almost covered with chains and in a state of pitiful filth and wretchedness. On their arrival, the racks were made ready and the executioner prepared his hooks and other instruments of torture. Many of the prisoners were proscribed, others driven into exile; to some the sword dealt the penalty of death. For no one easily recalls the acquittal of anyone in the time of Constantius when an accusation against him had even been whispered.

We can see from this that poor Martinus was barely strong enough to raise a sword against Paulus and was not able to deliver a killing blow. Paulus Catena though got his comeuppance a few years later in around 362 when he was burned alive for his crimes.

This probably left Britain in a state of flux, with most of the Roman nobility slain and imprisoned and with the cruel minions of Catena in place revolt must have been fermenting. To see Rome so cruelly despoil and kill its people was too much. Those left in power raised one of their own to power and rebelled from Rome probably expelling and killing any Roman officials who apposed them. This new leader was Carausius II. We do not know if this was his real name, only that he had used the same name of a previous usurper from about 80 years before.

In 354 Carausius had an immediate problem though, Magnentius had stripped the country of its legions and best fighting men a few years before, many remaining Romano British leaders had been killed or taken by Paulus and then some Romans remaining would have been killed or expelled by Carausius II and his supporters. So Carausius II must have had problems of what to do at this point to defend the provinces from attack. He appears to have successfully led the country into the coming year and beyond but the weakened state of the defenses must have been apparent to the neighboring Scots and Picts for within a few years Britain was on it’s knees to Rome once again begging for help.

Julian

In 355 AD Julian was made Ceasar of Britain and Gaul by Constantius as Constantius was tied up in the east fighting and couldn’t manage the whole empire. Julian however had problems in Gaul with the Alamanni who had crossed the Rhine. He didn’t have time to sort out Britain. For the next few years he campaigned against the Alamanni, made treaties with them and took enlisted troops from them. In his descriptions of Britain under the rule of Julian, Ammianus writes that unrest in Gaul distracted Julian from taking an active role as commander of Britain.

The barbarian raids from Scot and Pict must have continued and probably also from Franks, Angles, Frisians and Jutes who had been roaming northern Gaul since Magnentius and Constantius had let them in. Julian had to deal with these Germanic tribes in Gaul as they had stopped the grain imports from Britain reaching Rome. This led to a scarcity of Grain in Rome in 360, when the people of Rome actually rebelled due to these shortages.

In 356 Carausius II is still in power. We know this as coins were issued by him. His reign must have been a difficult one. An example of the coinage evidence is a copper issue, of barbarous type, showing on the obverse the head of an emperor and something like the legend domino Carausio ces, while the reverse rudely copies the device of emperor, phoenix and labarum, which was in use about A.D. 340-350, and bears the legend DOMIN . . . CONTA . . NO. This `Conta’ is Constantius of course showing that Carausius probably still recognized the authority of the Emperor in the east or hoped to show himself as equal to him.

In 356 Julian was still campaigning against the Alamanni in Gaul. In around 358 or 359 there is a major invasion by Scots and Picts. 358 is the last date we have for coins of Carausius II. It is possible he was defeated by these attacks and Britain was left open to plundering by small bands of Pict and Scoti in the north and west of the country. The tomb of Carausius II may have been found in Penmachno, Gwynedd, Wales. There is a cairn stone there that reads:

CARAVSIUS HIC IACIT IN

HOC CONGERIES LAPIDUM

'Carausius lies here in this cairn'. This has been dated to between 4^th to late 5^th Century so it is most likely the Cairn of Carausius II who may have died fighting the Picts.

In Wales the Desi (Irish settlers from county Waterford) under Aed Brosc were beginning to expand. In 359 after this heavy assault by the Picts and Scots these raids had become too much and Britain’s leaders begged Rome for assistance. Julian answered and sent some legions under Lupicinus in 360AD. He brought with him the Herulians, Batavians and Moesians. In the words of Jovian another Roman historian we are told :

"... the wild tribes of the Scots and Picts broke their understanding to keep peace, laid waste the country near the frontier, and caused alarm among the provincials, who were exhausted by the repeated disasters they had already suffered. The Caesar [Julian], who was spending the winter at Paris a prey to various anxieties, shrank from going in person, like Constans on a previous occasion, to help his subjects across the Channel; he was afraid of leaving Gaul without a ruler at the very time when the Alamanni were bent on fierce war. He decided therefore to send Lupicinus, at that time master of cavalry, to settle these troubles either by negotiation or by force. Lupicinus was a stout and experienced soldier, who was apt, however, to set up his horn on high and to talk in the style of a tragic hero. It was long a matter of debate whether his greed predominated over his cruelty or the reverse. Taking with him a light-armed force of Herulians and Batavians together with two units of Moesians, this commander reached Bononia [Boulogne] in the depths of winter. He embarked his troops on vessels which he collected, and sailed with a favourable wind to Rutufiae [Richborough] on the opposite shore. From there he marched to Londinium [London], intending to let the situation determine his strategy and to take the field as soon as possible."

Lupicinus arrived in 360 with his legions and quickly cleared up the Pict and Scoti attacks. Lupicinus appoints Alypius as Vicarius, Fullofaudes as Comes Britanarium, and Nectarides Comes Maritimi Tractus.(General of the coastal regions). Due to these attacks the villa society in Britain is under terminal decline and by the end of the 4^th Century most villas have been abandoned and even towns and villages show signs of abandonment and decay.

Alypius the Vicarius of Britain has the job of rebuilding or repairing Britain’s infrastructure, including Hadrians wall and the shore forts of Kent and East Anglia. He was probably based in London. He was recalled within a couple of years and sent to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem.

Fullofaudes is made Comes Britanarium. He is said to be of Germanic origin, possibly Vandal or Goth. He would probably have been based in York. Nectarides was probably responsible for the southern and eastern coastal regions. He appears to have been Greek or Roman. Perhaps based on the Saxon shore in Kent or East Anglia.

Between 360 and 366 Britain appears to rebuild it’s defenses and has five years of relative peace before the Scots and Picts once more band together in 366/7, this time though in a more organized and planned way that may have also involved other Germanic peoples. This event is later called the `barbarian conspiracy’....


The beautiful peaceful country of Wales. Photo by Dane Pestano.

Next the Barbarian Conspiracy.

References:

[a] The early sources all call him a barbarian. Later sources mention his Frankish mother and British father. That he may have had a British link is supported by the fact that he was able to get the support of the Romano Britons under the Comes Britanarium, Gerontius. However the above quote which states his kin were Franks and Saxons casts some doubt on this unless these two were closely allied at the time. See The Revolt And Ethnic Origin of the Usurper Magnentius and the rebellion of Vetrianio by John F Drinkwater, who suggests the British link may be suspect.

[1] http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/res_gestae_14.htm

[2] http://www.roman-emperors.org/magnent.htm

[3]http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/bios/eudanc.html

Images Public domain via Wikimedia Commons unless stated.

Lost City of the Legion': Roman port from which soldiers launched invasion of Wales 2,000 years ago is unearthed.

2011-08-25T10:40:00.003+01:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2029532/Roman-port-unearthed-soldiers-launched-invasion-Wales-2-000-years-ago.html

Defining the Dark Ages - Part one

2011-08-23T22:32:00.018+01:00

In defining the Dark Ages one must start with the period proceeding it to determine the events, wars and characters that led to the Roman withdrawal from Britain and western Europe. In these series of blogs I will briefly look at the history of Britain and to a lesser degree Europe, from the beginning of the fourth century AD to the beginning of the fifth.

Britain and Europe in the fourth Century.

Roman Britain at beginning of fifth century when the provinces had been split into five.

Britain at the beginning of the fourth century was a rich and prosperous one. The Romans had divided the country into two provinces Britannia Prima in the south and Britannia Secunda in the north, each with sub provinces or Caesariensis. These partitions were created by the Emperor Severus to try and limit the power of local generals to raise large armies against Rome. Although a good idea it did not stop further rebellion and in the future Britain was further split into four and then five different provinces, again for the same reason. The actual location though of the fifth provice Valentia is still debatable. Mak Wilson over on his blog Badonicus discusses the problems here. The governor (Consul) of Superior controlled the main bulk of the legionary armies and was based in London. Inferior was headed by a Praetorian rank and controlled smaller armies or frontier troops called Litanei and were based in York.

The local tribes of southern and eastern Britain were mostly of Belgic origin, having fled in various waves before and after defeat to Caesars’ Romans in Gaul in 60BC. The Belgic tribes themselves were Germanic in origin, who had taken on Celtic customs and culture. The interior and western tribes would have been indigenous Britons. But they were all in effect Roman citizens, Romanised Britons, still though with Celtic customs, local tribal leaders and a degree of the old pre Roman culture.

Society had spread out from the confines of the town and cities and the rich and powerful made their homes in their vast country estates, building fine villas. The population at this time must have reached about five million. Rome had brought new machinery and practices that increased the production of arable land, feeding not only the population of Britain but also exporting enough to feed the mouths of a hungry Europe. Cattle and sheep rearing had also benefited from this time of plenty to form much larger herds. The woodlands of Britain had been much cleared and at this time boundaries of hedges and fences had started to enclose rectangular fields and pasture. Towns were civilised places where trade was strong, sanitation sound and an educational system was in place to produce a basis for the continuation of the Roman way. To some, the early part of the fourth century AD was a golden age of Britain under imperial Roman power.

The situation in Gaul was not quite as good. Gaul like Britain was partitioned into its provinces, Gallica Prima in the south (as it was nearest to Rome) and secunda in the North. Armorica in the north west much later became Brittany. In the west Aquitania, which was further subdivided into three parts. The tribes of Gaul were similar to Britain’s. Gauls were the Celts who were settled in the central regions and to the west in Armorica, the Belgae had settled in north and eastern Gaul , and pushed westwards into parts of Armorica as well. The Aquitanians were entirely different with a variety of tribes hence the three way partitions, but the northern region bordering on the Loire and Armorica was originally Pictish. The Picts were very similar to the Gauls and Belgae. All three appear to have spoken different languages or dialects perhaps. Here is a description of the Gauls given by Ammianus, a fourth Century Roman Historian.:

Wounded Gallic warrior

“Nearly all the Gauls are of a lofty stature, fair, and of ruddy complexion; terrible from the sternness of their eyes, very quarrelsome, and of great pride and insolence. A whole troop of foreigners would not be able to withstand a single Gaul if he called his wife to his assistance, who is usually very strong, and with blue eyes; especially when, swelling her neck, gnashing her teeth, and brandishing her sallow arms of enormous size, she begins to strike blows mingled with kicks, as if they were so many missiles sent from the string of a catapult.

The voices of the generality are formidable and threatening, whether they are in good humour or angry: they are all exceedingly careful of cleanliness and neatness, nor in all the country, and most especially in Aquitania, could any man or woman, however poor, be seen either dirty or ragged.

The men of every age are equally inclined to war, and the old man and the man in the prime of life answer with equal zeal the call to arms, their bodies being hardened by their cold weather and by constant exercise, so that they are all inclined to despise dangers and terrors. Nor has any one of this nation ever mutilated his thumb from fear of the toils of war, as men have done in Italy, whom in their district are called Murci.

The nation is fond of wine, and of several kinds of liquor which resemble wine. And many individuals of the lower orders, whose senses have become impaired by continual intoxication, which the apophthegm of Cato defined to be a kind of voluntary madness, run about in all directions at random; so that there appears to be some point in that saying which is found in Cicero's oration in defence of Fonteius, "that henceforth the Gauls will drink their wine less strong than formerly," because forsooth they thought there was poison in it.”

We can see from this description that although the Gauls where hot tempered and fearsome warriors they also made sure that cleanliness and neatness where high priorities. Even the poor being made to dress well, suggesting some type of early welfare system where possibly local tribal leaders were responsible for the general well being of the whole tribe. You dont mess with their wives though ;-)

Barbarian raiding from across the Rhine by Frankish tribes had started in the late third century and had attacked the rich villa society of the open Gallic countryside. Many villas were abandoned in Gaul and Armorica and the people returned to towns which were then fortified and walls built to keep out raiders. This led to a movement of the rich nobility of Gaul to southern Britain were they built their new villas in the late third and early fourth Century. The situation in Gaul was brought under control by the efforts of Constantine the Great, Constantine I. He was proclaimed emperor of the Roman Empire in Britain at York in 306 AD soon after his father Constantius had died. Constantine managed to bring the Rhine frontier under control and then the whole empire eventually, moving its capital to Constantinople. He was also a great supporter of Christianity and helped Christianity gain a foothold of power within the imperial system. Hans Polsander put’s it this way in his work on Constantine:

“By entrusting some government functions to the Christian clergy he actually made the church an agency of the imperial government”

This was an important move. As Christianity became more powerful it also became more involved in the workings of the Empire. Positions of power within government also became positions of power within the church. By the late fourth century and early fifth these positions of power were evident wherein Bishops came from the ruling nobility of the land.

Contantine I

Constantine the Greats legacy was one of stability and growth within his lifetime. When he died in 337 he was still wearing the white robes of a Christian neophyte, showing how far Christianity had come and how powerful its influence had been on those of the Empire. Although later Emperors would try to bring back the pagan ways or adopt alternative Christian creeds, the die was set and Catholic Christianity had a strong enough hold to come out on top by the end of the fourth Century. Britain however, situated on the edge of the Empire was a breeding ground for alternative teachings such as Pelagianism and the Celtic churches attempts to remain independent from Roman doctrine. In one way this was good as without these dissentions we would probably know very little about subsequent fifth century Britain at all.

After 337 Constantine’s sons started to fight over the rights to the Empire. His son Constantine II took power in the west and started a wholesale genocide of his relatives to secure his position. His brother Constans now stood in his way, ruling in the eastern Empire. They met in battle at Equilea and Constantine was defeated. Constans how ruled both the east and west. He may have visited Britain sometime around 340 probably on a military campaign.(Ammianus).

Around this time the Irish started raiding the eastern coasts of Britain. Some started to settle North Wales and would eventually become a problem to Roman authorities within 20-30 years when Cunedda is brought down from northern Britain to expel them. At some point the Irish Desi tribe of Meath and Munster also started to settle southern and eastern Wales.

Constans

By 340 the villa society in Britain had increasingly succumbed to the same problems as those earlier in Gaul. Barbarian raiding by Picts, Franks, Angles, Frisians and other Germanic tribes had started to put pressure on these undefended rich Villa establishments. People started to move back to the cities and towns to better defend against such raids. It was at this time that Emperor Constans must have come to put down the Barbarian raids and re-establish order.

In the next part the start of the breakdown of Roman authority in Britain begins.

Part Two - The rebellions - is here

Images Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

Inishowen Community Radio appearance Friday 26th August

2011-08-23T20:28:00.002+01:00

I will be appearing on Inishowen Community Radio station Donegal, Ireland this Friday, 26th August at 10.40am to discuss the findings in my book.

Book mentioned in Journal.ie news page.

2011-08-22T20:38:00.000+01:00

Marwnad Cynddylan and the mention of Arthur.

2011-08-21T20:32:00.007+01:00

There is a much discussed mention of Arthur in the poem Marwnad Cynddylan ('The Death Song of Cynnddylan') which is about a seventh century king of Pengwern, where it includes the line :

Brodyr a'm bwyad. [Oedd] gwell ban fythyn,

canawon artir fras, dinas dengyn,

This usually translated as:

It was better when they were

the young whelps of great Arthur, the mighty fortress.

However I think only special pleading can place Arthur in this poem. The original word is quite clearly `artir' not Arthur. The 9th-10thC old Welsh word 'artir' appears in a welsh charter in the Book of Landaff and is expanded to `ar dir' in Middle Welsh+ and has the meaning `upon the ground or land/territory'. So in translation would be,( my efforts):

Brodyr a'm bwyad

I have brothers who have gone.

gwell ban fythyn

Better forever in fame

canawon artir fras, dinas dengyn

Were the young whelps in the rich land of the mighty fortress,

[y] rhag Caer Lwytgoed nis digonsyn

against Caer Lwytgoed there was not enough of them..

I have brothers who have gone.
Better forever in fame
Were the young whelps in the rich land of the mighty fortress
Aainst Caer Lwytgoed there was not enough of them.

Words:

gwell =better,

ban =lofty, loud

fythyn = fyth yn = forever in

Canawon = whelps

Artir = Ar tir(dir) = upon the land of

fras = rich / broad

dinas = fortress /city

dengyn = mighty / strong

rhag = against,

nis =not

Digonsyn is 'digon' = enough, 'syn = plenty.

Nothing whatsoever to do with Arthur. I am not sure how the original translators got it so wrong or maybe I have? A more poetic version to keep faith with the original rhyme - fythin - dengyn - digonsyn would be:

I had brothers now gone,

Better in fame for all eternity,

Were the whelps in the rich land of fortress mighty,

Before Caer Lwytgoed they were not a plenty.

Scholars such as R. Geraint Gruffydd still support the idea that Artir equals Arthur but I am at a loss to understand why when the word Artir is quite clearly composed of ar and tir, later ar dir. Evidence of such conjugations are in the work itself with fythyn and digonsyn being two examples. Not content with translating Artir as Arthur, scholars also change fras (rich/broad) to wras (great) to make great Arthur. These wholesale changes just to make a non existent name fit is painful in the extreme.

http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/history/marwnad_cynddylan/dyhedd.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Llandaff

Coroticus Rex Aloo, Saint Patrick and Irish Kings.

2011-08-21T18:57:00.012+01:00

“..a man who has no respect for God nor for His priests whom He chose..”

Coroticus was a late fifth century Romano British ruler in Ireland and possibly Britain who came into conflict with the apostle of Ireland St.Patrick when some Picts and Scots under the authority of Coroticus captured, enslaved and killed newly baptised Christians in the late 480’s to early 490’s. Patrick first wrote a letter asking for the return of some of the captured women which was refused and then wrote a second letter proclaiming the injustice of these actions and as good as excommunicated Coroticus whom he considered a Christian and a Briton[1]. Only the second letter still survives in five manuscripts but none of them bear a title[2] This second letter is now called the Epistola ad Coroticum and appears to be an open letter to the people and court of Coroticus and possibly to a wider audience in Ireland and Britain.[3] Before looking at Coroticus in more detail it would be useful to relate a short summary of Patrick’s life to the point where Coroticus became involved.

Patrick himself had been carried off as a slave, probably from south western Britain[4] to Ireland as a boy of sixteen but had escaped six years later when twenty two and returned to Britain and his parents[5]. He then trained in his ministry[6] becoming first a deacon before returning to Ireland sometime after Palladius, the first Bishop of the Irish, appointed by Pope Celestine in 431[7]. Palladius, who was also called Patrick[8], had been merged with the St Patrick by the time of Patrick’s hagiography by the seventh century monks Tirechan and Muirchu who wrote differing Lives of the saint. It is generally now agreed however that Patrick actually arrived for his mission to Ireland in the late 450’s allowing time for his training.

Approximately thirty years after becoming a deacon Patrick was made a Bishop, which would place this appointment in the late 480’s when Patrick must have been in his seventies[9]. Shortly before becoming a deacon, in his anxiety at accepting this appointment, he had confessed a sin that occurred in his boyhood to a close friend. This friend, thirty years later, had used it against Patrick shortly after he became a Bishop, as a pretext for charges against him .[10] He was apparently exonerated.

From these scraps of information we can place Patrick’s birth in the most tumultuous time in British history, the early fifth century at about 411. This was a time when barbarian hoards ransacked Western Europe and sacked Rome itself. Britain was devastated by Saxon raids and in concert with Armorica, Britain rebelled and threw out her Roman magistrates and took the government of the provinces into her own hands.[11]

Peace and Roman authority in Gaul was restored in 417[12] but the position in Britain is not so clear. Gildas, the sixth century writer of British history may suggest that the Romans did return to restore peace in Britain at around the same time[13]. Patrick’s capture and slavery then would have occurred in 427 when he was sixteen; escaping in 433 when he was twenty two and finally returning to Britain.

Patrick began his training in the turbulent 430’s and then into the 440’s may have taken vows of monasticism[14]. He may have been captured twice during these troubled times, once for a few days and once for only two months[15]. In the 450’s Saxon troubles had amplified and an ecclesiastical break with the authorities in Gaul and Rome may have caused the Church in Britain to take responsibility for Irish ecclesiastical matters prompting the mission of Patrick to Ireland.[16] In any event shortly after becoming a Deacon in around 456, it appears that Patrick had this calling to return to the place of his previous captivity. This he did and spent his time generally in Ulster and other parts of northern Ireland, converting Irish chieftains, their children and the general population[17]. The timeframe in which Patrick, the letter, and Coroticus are placed is towards the end of Patrick’s life, so around the late 480’s to early 490’s. Patrick was to die in around 493 after upwards of nearly forty years in his mission to Ireland. If as suggested his birth was in around 411 then he would have been eighty two at the time of his death. At such an advanced age, in his seventies when dealing with Coroticus, it is clear why Patrick was not able to confront him himself and hence sent letters instead with trusted disciples.

Patrick’s status as the apostle of the Irish is based mainly on much later seventh and eighth century hagiography. Some evidence of this may be seen in an early document which is silent concerning him. It is the letter of Columbanus to Pope Boniface IV in around 613 CE. Columbanus writes that Ireland's Christianity "was first handed to us by you, the successors of the holy apostles", appearing to refer to Palladius alone and ignoring Patrick[18]. His main impetus appears to have been in northern Ireland, the southern half having already experienced Christianity under previous missionaries and Palladius[19].
Patricks rise to fame in the seventh century coincided with political manoeuvrings in Ireland of the time when competing tribes foisted their own Saints to positions of glorification; Brigit and Columcille being the impetus for Patrick’s elevation by the powerful O’Neills of the North. In the fifth and sixth centuries Irish Christianity was still a separate entity in law from secular society and had no powers to impose its will. By the seventh and eighth centuries this had changed and a merging of ecclesiastical law with that of secular had attained and this empowered religious leaders, leading to conflicts and outright war between them. Their respective saints were used in these battles for religious dominance with Patrick emerging victorius[20].

Attempts have been made to associate Coroticus with the Strathclyde King Ceretic, an ancestor in the Harleian Genealogies of Rhun Ab Arthal of the ninth century. Although the genealogies may be corrupt or inaccurate they do place Ceretic in the correct time frame in a life spanning the last third of the fifth century to the mid sixth century. Professor David Dumville of the University of Cambridge worked out from the genealogies a tentative obit for Ceretic of approximately 522 which is not too far off from our own calculations[21] based not on the genealogies but on the identification of this ruler in existing Irish records. Of course the possibility remains that Ceretic himself is purely based on the legend of Coroticus and a late attachment with Dumbarton. Finally though, as Coroticus was a Briton it’s quite possible he did enter Ireland via the Strathclyde region, suggesting he may have been a ruler there as well, having pacified the Picts and Scots and taken some to Ireland with him.

As well as Dumville’s work on St Patrick, great strides were made into the problem of St.Patrick and Coroticus by James Carney in the 1950’s and by E. A. Thompson in his work ‘St.Patrick and Coroticus’[22]. In this he pointed out that although Coroticus may have been a Briton, he must have been ruling in Ireland at the time, as Patrick was able to as good as excommunicate him which he could only do if Coroticus was within Patrick’s Episcopal jurisdiction. This revelation of course produced many questions and Thompson came to the conclusion that Coroticus was a British exile or renegade freedman amongst a larger British population in Ireland. This would not be beyond the bounds of possibility. Gildas, in the sixth century describes the exodus from Britain with the advent of the Anglo Saxon expansion in the mid fifth century. In the late ninth century the Breton writer Wrdisten in describing the words of Gildas tell us that the exodus was to Armorica, Ireland and north eastern Gaul (Belgium)[23]. Patrick’s mission therefore, may have originally been to this fledgling British population in Ireland from which he then expanded into the wider Irish or Hibernian population as he calls them. As well as the Irish common Hibernians he also distinguished the Scots who were probably the northern Irish nobility and the Picts some of whom were under the command of Coroticus.[34]

In the late seventh century a life of St.Patrick was written by the monk Muirchu entitled ‘Vita Sancta Patricii’ which survives in the Book of Armagh. In the eighth century headings of this book added by an unknown scribe, Coroticus is called ‘Coirthech Rex Aloo’. Aloo is a genitive form of Al or Ail, ‘rock’ which has prompted some to translate Rex Aloo as ‘King of Alt Clut’, the `Rock of the Clyde’ an old name of Dumbarton[24] in Strathclyde, Scotland. With this attachment[25] Coroticus was instantly made a king of Strathclyde who commanded Britons, Picts and Scots. He was now able to raid Ireland and carry off captives for sale abroad. Thompson’s work of course changed this view that Coroticus had to be based in Dumbarton and Dumville agreed that Coroticus actually ruled to some degree in Ireland.

In his letter to Coroticus Patrick attempts a form of excommunication without stating as much. Michael E Jones in `The End of Roman Britain’[26] puts it like this in the way Patrick thinks about Coroticus:

“ ..Coroticus will suffer accordingly, with punishment in the future life and exile (through excommunication) in the present one...”

What happened after the letter to Coroticus is generally unknown. Muirchu in his life of St. Patrick explains a supernatural tale of Patrick asking God to remove Coroticus and then during a meeting of his royal court a bard sang a song suggesting that Coroticus should leave his royal seat, which was miraculously echoed by the assembled nobility. At this Coroticus turned into a fox before their very eyes and scurried away.[27] A slightly different version of this tale exists in relation to another character of Irish history that we shall discuss later. All we can say is that Coroticus probably returned to Britain at some time after the letter, either exiled, as hinted by Jones above, or according to his own free will.

The idea that ‘Aloo’ refers to Alt Clud, ‘the fortress of the Clyde’ appears to be without any firm basis in fact[28]. Bede calls Dumbarton AlCluithe and the Annals of Ulster for 780 ‘Ail Cluaithe’; in 870 ‘Ailech Cluathe’and finally Adomnan in the late seventh century calls it ‘Petra Cloithe’[29]. Therefore the name clearly always carries the Clyde river assignment. Add to this the archaeology which shows no fortress until the seventh century and Alt Clud appears to recede in consideration even further[30]. Coroticus, as Thompson and Dumville have shown was actually based, at this time in the late fifth century, in Ireland and hence it is to Ireland we must look for the name of this Kingdom.

‘Ail’ or its earlier form ‘Al’ and genitive form Alo means `the Rock’ and its genitive early Scots Gaelic form was Aloo and the later Irish genitive was Ailech. Therefore the kingdom in Ireland that Coroticus belonged to was the one later known as Ailech, in Tir Conell, later Donegal, northwest Ireland, home to the northern O’Neill dynasties and the descendents of Eoghan son of Niall of the Nine Hostages. Ailech was their fortress, one of the most famous in Ireland with a history stretching back to the Iron Age and with evidence of an early medieval sixth century stone structure[31]. All we need do now therefore is ascertain who was ruling the kingdom of Ailech in the late fifth century when Patrick wrote his letter.

The Grianan Ailech

The only person in the frame, following the famous battle of Ochae in 483 is Muircertach Mac Erca, son of Muiredach, son of Eoghan. He was eventually made to claim the kingship of all Ireland by 510 CE after an interregnum period of a few years where no kings were listed. However, as pointed out by Brian Lacey in his work Cenall Conail and the Donegal Kingdoms AD 500-800, the O’Neills did not obtain the Grianan of Ailech from the Cenél Conaill until the late eighth century and the current Grianan was not built until the early eighth century. Therefore, Mac Erca could not have ruled from the hill where the Grianan now stands unless he did so at the time in the late fifth century and there was a reversal of fortunes for the O’Neills between the fifth and the eighth centuries. This is not out of the question considering the little that is known of the period and as all material in the Irish annals prior to the late sixth century was retrospectively added, discerning actual events is a very difficult prospect. Indeed, the descendents of Eoghan certainly lost a battle to those of Cenél Conaill in 573. Mac Erca in any event would have ruled a territory later known as Ailech but probably at the time would have been known as Fochla (the north) or as Saint Patrick put it Foclut (the place where he was held captive).

It’s doubtful though that Coroticus could have been Mac Erca although some circumstantial evidence may show connections, such as them both being linked with exile. Coroticus having said to have been exiled by Patrick and Mac Erca having been exiled several times in his tales. Coroticus also having slaughtered Christians and Mac Erca having done the same to Holy Cross bearers. The details written by Patrick concerning Coroticus are also a similar match to the reputation and details of Mac Erca. The only other association may come from the name Muircertach which appears to be composed of ‘muir’ – ‘the sea’ or ‘from overseas’ and Certach – possibly the name Caraticus Patricks Coroticus, later British Ceretic, but this is problematical and would take much more work from experts to ascertain any connections.

Muircertach Mac Erca was first called ‘King of Ailech’[32] (equivalent to Rex Aloo) as apposed to king of ‘Cenél nEoghan’ in the tenth century; in additions made to the Clonmacnoise type annals, the Annals of Ulster, Annals of Tigernach and Chronica Scottorum.[33] It’s unlikely therefore that he would have been known as this in the fifth or sixth century. In any event, Mac Erca and Coroticus would certainly have been contemporaries of some sort but perhaps Coroticus belonged to an earlier generation.

If Coroticus did rule from Ailech in the fifth century then the whole history of the association of the Britons with northern Ireland will have to be reconsidered. Indeed, in his work, Lacey makes such a beginning by suggesting that the northern O’Neills may in fact have been Cruithne, ie Pretani - Britons. Britons that had begun settling in northern Ireland at an early period when the Romans had taken mainland Britain.

[1] An Age Of Tyrants, Britain And The Britons, C. A. Snyder 1998, Sutton Publishing Ltd. P.77, Also by Dumville et al Pg.109 and most other commentators.

[2] Saint Patrick 493-1993 David N Dumville et al, 1993, Boydell Press. Pg. 107

[3] Ibid. Dumville et al p.109

[4] K. Dark, Saint Patrick 493-1993, Pgs 19-24. Suggesting the West Country around Dorset.

[5] The Confessio, Patricks own work.

[6] Confessio. Patrick himself says “thanks be to God, because after so many years the Lord bestowed on them according to their cry” meaning it was many years before he returned to Ireland.

[7] “Palladius, having been ordained by Pope Celestine, is sent as first bishop to the Irish believing in Christ”. Chronicle of Prosper of Aquitaine.

[8] Ibid. Dumville pg.39 quoting Tirechan.

[9] This may appear quite late to some but evidence may be in Patricks own Epistola Ad Coroticum where he confirms that he must put on record that he is a Bishop, as though it is not yet well known.

[10] Confessio Para.27. “They brought up against me after thirty years an occurrence I had confessed before becoming a deacon. On account of the anxiety in my sorrowful mind, I laid before my close friend what I had perpetrated on a day—nay, rather in one hour—in my boyhood because I was not yet proof against sin.” and para32.

[11] Gallic Chronicle of 452 and Zosimus.

[12] The Cambridge Ancient History. Volume 14, Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, AD 425–600, Cambridge University Press, 2001.

[13] Gildas, De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae The History, Paras 17 and 18. Gildas’ knowledge though of events before 450 is sketchy and confused at best and so should be treated with caution.

[14] Dumville and Charles Edwards, Saint Patrick 493-1993 p.18.

[15] Confessio 21. “And a second time, after many years, I was taken captive. On the first night I accordingly remained with my captors, but I heard a divine prophecy, saying to me: ‘You shall be with them for two months.’ So it happened”

[16] Dumville ; p.18

[17] James Carney, Studies in Irish Literature and History (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1955) iii, Questia, 7 Mar. 2009 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=34187430>

[18] Ibid Dumville et al, Pg.10 by T.M.Charles Edwards.

[19] Kathleen Hughes, The Church in Irish Society 400-800. Pg 308. A New History of Ireland, 2005.

[20] A New History of Ireland. Edited by Daibhi O Croinin. Oxford 2005.

[21] Which we place in the 530’s to be discussed.

[23] Le Cartulaire de Landevenec, Arthur De La Borderie Arbre, d’Or, Genève, 2004. p.15. Wrdisten nomme trois de ces pays : d’abord celui qu’il habite luimême (istam terram), c’est-à-dire la péninsule armoricaine, puis l’Irlande (Scoticam terram) et le nord-est de la Gaule (Belgicam).

[24] From the Gaelic `Dunn Breatann’ Fort of the Britons.

[25] This idea dates back as far as 1886. See ‘A multidisciplinary chronology for Alt-Glut, Castle Rock, Dumbarton’. Leslie Alcock 1976.

[26] Cornel University Press 1998.

[27] ‘Conversing With Angels and Ancients, The Literary Myths of Medieval Ireland’, Joseph Falaky Nagy, 1997 Cornell University Press.

[28] Ibid Alcock Pg.105 “the earliest of these references is the most contentious”

[29] Ibid Alcock Pgs. 106-107 Petra = Rock.

[30] Ibid Alcock Pg.111.

[31] Medieval Ireland, An Encyclopedia, By Seán Duffy, Ailbhe MacShamhráin, James Moynes. Routledge; 2004, pgs.11-12

[32] “Murchertach mac Erca rig Ailigh”

[33] In these annals at 490, in relation to the Battle of Cenn Losnada: ‘..Muircertach, son of Erc, King of Ailech, were victors..’ The Chronicle of Ireland, TM Charles –Edwards. Liverpool University Press 2006, pg.79.
[34] Ibid Dumville et al. " It is an affront to them that we are Irish (Hiberionaci)". Dumville says of this "It is as though 'Scottus' meant specifically 'pagan Irish', whereas 'Hibernus' or 'Hiberniacus' had a more neutral connotation".

King Arthur in Irish Pseudo-Historical Tradition - An Introduction

2011-08-21T17:40:00.024+01:00

Was King Arthur Irish?

..and then the power and strength of Britain was destroyed after him..

After four years of research and the translation of ancient Irish manuscripts the forgotten story of the Irish Arthur can now be introduced and revealed for the first time in hundreds of years. From long forgotten manuscripts this scholarly paper has pieced together a tale that will astound those seeking the origins of King Arthur. Most of this material has never been seen or read before, with much of it newly translated into English for the first time, both narrative prose and ancient poetry.

The main sources are discussed first and then the implications of the ancestry, name and background of this fascinating character of Irish history and myth are examined. What then unfolds is a tale of astounding similarities to that of the Arthur of the Welsh. It is a story of heroic deeds, conquests, romance, enslavement and magic.

This King fought numerous battles, was in his early years a murderous tyrant, exacted tribute, was in possession of the Lia Fáil, conquered Ireland and Gaul and assumed the sovereignty of Britain, Scotland, the Saxons, Denmark and the Orkneys; is fostered by a Druid and is finally given the ultimate accolade of a famous hero – the triple death.

Not only did he accomplish all this but did so at exactly the same time as King Arthur of the Britons is said to have done! With over two hundred footnotes there is plenty of information for those seeking further clues and answers to the enigma of Arthur.

So was King Arthur Irish? Read it and decide for yourself!

ISBN : 978-0-9570002-0-9

Dark Age Arthurian Books
Author : Dane Pestano

Book and eBook versions here:

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/irisharthur

Order signed copy of book direct from author here. Prices include shipping.

Shipping Country Choices
The most recent edition and best version is the paperback.

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/irisharthur

IBooks version - iphones, iPads, iTunes etc

Kindle UK version

Reviews :

Great review here by Tyler Tichelaar on his blog.

By Mak Wilson

This book is not only well research but extremely well written. However, it is not for the faint hearted as there is a great deal of detail contained within the 125 pages; detail that would take a similar expert in the subject matter to do a true critique of it. I did find it a gripping read, never-the-less. Would I personally agree that the ‘Dark Age’ character put forward by Dane Prestano was the bases for Arthur? Probably not, although there is no denying the similarities between his exploits and those of the legendary king. It did leave me with more question than answers and I look forward to the next book where some of those might be resolved. Would I recommend this book? I would indeed ... even with its ‘interesting’ cover image.

By Karen Han.
Very rarely do we get a ground-breaking book that changes the way we look at the history and evolution of a legend. In his very first work of historical non-fiction, Dane Pestano has handed it to us. With his well-researched and exhaustive account, Pestano blows away the mists of the past. Using his extensive knowledge of the literary sources, archaeology, history and art, he triumphantly resurrects a shadowy warlord who may have entered literary and pseudo-historical tradition as "King Arthur of the Irish". His fresh new perspectives and alternative insights add to our understanding of the Dark Ages, a period hugely shrouded in mystery, of which we know very little about. This book is essential reading for all Arthurian enthusiasts.

By JML, 2010. I've read and re-read your paper, first of all I'm in no way a literary critic but I have to say that I was left flabbergasted. I've never come across any history of that time relating to the high kings that is as comprehensive in its research as that of your paper. I never heard this idea before but after reading your paper, and if you've got your research right, as I believe you do, I'm convinced of your argument.
May I conclude by thanking you for letting me glimpse this powerful and compelling exposé, and by all means let me know when your going to publish the book.For now I wish you the best of luck with this project and hope you succeed in publishing this book as it would be akin to a pole-shift in an historical sense..

By J-G Turner, 2010. I have studied your work closely. I am not yet ready to solidify my position. I will tell you though I am fascinated by it. I think that you have done great work. I think that you have some brilliant ground breaking research.

Blog review here :

Roisin McLaughlin's Child of Danu Blog review

Newspaper article by Roisin for the Inishowen Times.

King Arthur was not English or Welsh but Irish? by Inishowencommunityradio on Mixcloud

Riothamus and the Visigoths

2011-08-21T16:55:00.077+01:00

Where did the battle that Riotimus / Riothamus, king of the Britons, fought in around 470AD against Euric and his Visigoths in Gaul, take place? It has always been said by many scholars that this was the battle of Bourges Deols, just south of the Loire river, but nowhere in any source is Riotimus linked with this battle.

Map of France showing Loire river.

This blog post examines the evidence and reveals that Riotimus did not fight the battle at Deols, had nothing to do with the treachery of Arvandus, nor did Riotimus flee to Avallon after the battle. Instead the battle took place much further south in Auvergne, now Clermont Ferrand. All these points are central to the theory of Riothimus by Geoffrey Ashe in his book The Discovery of King Arthur, where he makes the suggestion that the tales of Arthur developed from those of Riotimus. Using the primary sources and details concerning Sidonious, Arvandus, Anthemius and Euric I feel I can now piece together successfully what happened and dispell any associations with King Arthur.

The four primary sources for the events of the time are works by Gregory of Tours, Jordanes, Hydatius and Sidonius:

Gregory, writing about period 463 - 467/8 AD:

Childeric I

Now Childeric fought at Orleans and Odovacrius came with the Saxons to Angers. At that time a great plague destroyed the people. Egidius died and left a son, Syagrius by name. On his death Odovacrius received hostages from Angers and other places. The Britanni were driven from Bourges by the Goths, and many were slain at the village of Déols. Count Paul with the Romans and Franks made war on the Goths and took booty. When Odovacrius came to Angers, king Childeric came on the following day, and slew count Paul, and took the city. In a great fire on that day the house of the bishop was burned. After this war was waged between the Saxons and the Romans; but the Saxons fled and left many of their people to be slain, the Romans pursuing. Their islands were captured and » ravaged by the Franks, and many were slain. In the ninth month of that year, there was an earthquake. Odovacrius made an alliance with Childeric, and they subdued the Alamanni, who had overrun that part of Italy.

Jordanes, writing about period 466 - 476:

"Euric, the king of the Visigoths, observing the frequent changes of the Roman princes, attempted to seize the Gauls for his own. Anthemius, the Emperor, receiving intelligence of this, immediately invited the aid of the Britons,whose King Riothimus, coming with twelve thousand by way of ocean, and disembarking from his ships, was received into the city/state of the Bituriges. Euric, king of the Visigoths, came against them leading an innumerable army, and fighting for a long time, overcame Riothimus, the king of the Britons, before the Romans had joined company with him. Having lost a great part of his army, he fled with all whom he could save, and came to the neighbouring nation of the Burgundians, then confederate with the Romans. But Euric, king of the Visigoths, seized Auvergne, a city of Gaul.....When Eurich, as we have already said, beheld these great and various changes, he seized the city of Arverna, where the Roman general Ecdicius was at that time in command. He was a senator of most renowned family and the son of Avitus, a recent emperor who had usurped the reign for a few days--for Avitus held the rule for a few days before Olybrius, and then withdrew of his own accord to Placentia, where he was ordained bishop. His son Ecdicius strove for a long time with the Visigoths, but had not the power to prevail. So he left the country and (what was more important) the city of Arverna to the enemy and betook himself to safer regions."

Sidonius:

His Letter to Riothamus (circa 471 or 475/6)

Sidonius Riothamo suo salutem

“I will write once more in my usual strain, mingling compliment with grievance. Not that I at all desire to follow up the first words of greeting with disagreeable subjects, but things seem to be always happening which a man of my order and in my position can neither mention without unpleasantness, nor pass over without neglect of duty. Yet I do my best to remember the burdensome and delicate sense of honour which makes you so ready to blush for others' faults. The bearer of this is an obscure and humble person, so harmless, insignificant, and helpless that he seems to invite his own discomfiture; his grievance is that the Bretons are secretly enticing his slaves away. Whether his indictment is a true one, I cannot say; but, if you can only confront the parties and decide the matter on its merits, I think the unfortunate man may be able to make good his charge, if indeed a stranger from the country unarmed, abject and impecunious to boot, has ever a chance of a fair or kindly hearing against adversaries with all the advantages he lacks, arms, astuteness, turbulences, and the aggressive spirit of men backed by numerous friends. Farewell.”

Sidonius as Bishop from Clermont Ferrand.

To his friend Vincentius (circa 470AD)

"THE case of Arvandus distresses me, nor do I conceal my distress, for it is our emperor's crowning praise that a condemned prisoner may have friends who need not hide their friendship. I was more intimate with this man than it was safe to be with one so light and so unstable, witness the odium lately kindled against me on his account, the flame of which has scorched me for this lapse from prudence.

At the Capitol, the Count of the Imperial Largess, his friend Flavius Asellus, acted as his host and jailer, showing him deference for his prefectship, which seemed, as it were, yet warm, so newly was it stripped from him. Meanwhile, the three envoys from Gaul arrived upon his heels with the provincial decrees empowering them to impeach in the public name. They were Tonantius Ferreolus, the ex-prefect, and grandson, on the mother's side, of the Consul Afranius Syagrius, Thaumastus, and Petronius, all men practised in affairs and eloquent, all conspicuous ornaments of our country. They brought, with other matters entrusted to them by the province, an intercepted letter, which Arvandus' secretary, now also under arrest, declared to have been dictated by his master.

It was evidently addressed to the King of the Goths, whom it dissuaded from concluding peace with 'the Greek Emperor', + urging that instead he should attack the Bretons north of the Loire, and asserting that the law of nations called for a division of Gaul between Visigoth and Burgundian."

Hydatius (chronicle):

463
In Armorica, Frederic, the brother of King Theoderic [II], rose up against Aegidius, count [and master] of both services, a man who enjoyed an excellent reputation and who pleased God with his good works. Frederic and his men were defeated and killed.

464-5
In the month of May, envoys of the above-mentioned Aegidius sailed by way of the Ocean (note the same term as Jordanes uses for Riotimus) to the Vandals and returned to where they came from in September by the same route. The Vandals were slaughtered in Sicily and driven from the island.
Aegidius died as a result of deception: some say that he was the victim of a trap, some that he was poisoned. With him gone, the Goths soon fell upon the regions he had protected in the name of Rome. . .

We also have other letters of Sidonius, a Roman noble of Gaul who became bishop of Clermont in 470 and was Urban Prefect of Rome between 468-470.

Arvandus was the Praetorian Prefect (PP) of Gaul from 464-65 and 467-468.

Aegidius was magister militum of Gaul from 454 until his death in 464/5.
Euric was King of the Visigoths 466-484,

Anthemius was Roman Emperor from 467 until 472.

Childeric was King of the Franks from around 457-481.

Odovacrius, Saxon leader allied with Childeric at some point.

Ricimer - Roman general and defacto ruler of the western empire from 457-472

Ecdicius - Friend of Sidonius and hero of Clermont who single handedly defeated thousands of Goths (a myth/exaggeration as will be shown below)

The sequence of the events that I will show proves that the testimony of Gregory has nothing whatsoever to do with Riotimus and his campaign and has been erroneously attached to the story of Riotimus. So let’s start with Gregory to show the chronology of events he describes. Scholars are of the opinion that this section comes from some ‘year chronicle’ (MacGeorge 2002, p.102-103) that Gregory had access to, possibly from Angers:

"Now Childeric fought at Orleans and Odovacrius came with the Saxons to Angers".

This took place in 463. Odovacrius appears to be a leader of Saxons.

"At that time a great plague destroyed the people."

The plague was in 464

"Egidius died and left a son, Syagrius by name. On his death Odovacrius received hostages from Angers and other places.

Egidius died then in 464/5 and Syagrius became the self styled `King of The Romans' in northern Gaul. From The chronicle of Hydatius above, we can see that the Goths 'soon' moved against the territories that Aegidius had protected.

"The Britanni were driven from Bourges by the Goths, and many were slain at the village of Déols"

This then occurs in around 465/66. Coincides with the death of Theoderic and the rise to power of Euric in 466, King of the Visigoths. Euric then, may have started his campaign by defeating the British garrison of Bourges or this was done before he even took power. Euric may have been dissatisfied with his brothers' attempts at expanding Visigothic influence northwards and hence took the crown for himself. It will be shown therefore that this battle of Bourges-Deols took place before Riotimus had even set foot in Gaul.

"Count Paul with the Romans and Franks made war on the Goths and took booty.

This then must have occurred sometime in 466/67. It looks like Count Paul assumed command after the death of Aegidius. The Romans(Armoricans?) with Frankish auxiliaries, defeated the Goths who had raided Bourges and had headed towards the north of the Loire threatening Angers.

"When Odovacrius came to Angers, king Childeric came on the following day, and slew count Paul, and took the city. In a great fire on that day the house of the bishop was burned. "

This is the confusing part. Odovacrius with his Saxons comes to Angers...then Childeric turns up with his army the next day and must have driven off the Saxons . He then attacks Count Paul with an unknown army and kills him. I am at a loss to understand why though as as far as we know he had supported the Romans. Perhaps Paul had something to do with the death of Aegidius. The story goes on to include Childeric slaughtering Saxons at the mouth of the Loire river sometime then in 466/67. This must have been near Nantes. Penny MacGeorge, however, in her work Late Roman Warlords translates this part slightly differently which probably makes more sense:

"...and king Childeric arrived the next day; the comes Paulus being killed, he occupied the city..."

This may imply that Paulus had been killed fighting the Saxons and Childeric had merley assumed command of the city, but it's still a tad ambiguous.

"After this war was waged between the Saxons and the Romans; but the Saxons fled and left many of their people to be slain, the Romans pursuing. Their islands were captured and ravaged by the Franks, and many were slain. In the ninth month of that year, there was an earthquake. Odovacrius made an alliance with Childeric, and they subdued the Alamanni, who had overrun that part of Italy."

This last part then gives us our last confirmed date in the sequence, which must be 467/8 when Hydatius also mentions Earthquake ("In the second year of the emperor Anthemius blood burst forth from the ground in the middle of Toulouse and continued to flow for an entire day.") and Victor of Tonnena tells of a comet that appeared for forty days in 467; the chronicler Marcellinus noted that Ravenna was struck by an earthquake in the same year (467) (Mathisen 1998, Epilogue).

That's Gregory's testimony. What's evident is that Gregory has no knowledge of Riotimus as this period only covers up to 467/8, so Riotimus' campaign must have been outside of his scope of Northern Gaul and the early Merovingian dominions. Hydatius, whose chronicle ends in 468 also has no knowledge of Riotimus. The above also shows that the battle in Bourges and Deols had nothing to do with Riotimus as it took place in 465/66. This then places Riotimus' campaign much further south. So for that we now need to study the testimony of Jordanes (writing circa 551), who used a lost source by Cassiodorus (writing circa 519) for his work:

"Euric, the king of the Visigoths, observing the frequent changes of the Roman princes, attempted to seize the Gauls for his own"

Euric became King of the Visigoths in around 466. It may have been at this time that Arvandus wrote to Euric encouraging him to attack the Britons, upset at losing his prefectorship as Arvandus was no longer a PP of Gaul at this time. It’s more likely though that he wrote in 467/68 when he became a PP again, hoping Euric would attack north of the Loire (as the Britons south of the Loire at Bourges had already been defeated by this time). The letter never got to Euric though and Euric in fact moved south instead. He was probably not tempted to move north due to having seen his brother defeated and killed by Egidius in around 464 and Count Paul and his Franks defeating the Goths in around 467 soon after the battles at Bourges Deols against the Britons.

"Anthemius, the Emperor, receiving intelligence of this, immediately invited the aid of the Britons, whose King Riothimus, coming with twelve thousand, and disembarking from his ships, was received into the state of the Bituriges"

Now the original Latin says the `state (or city) of the Bituriges', which is usually translated as Bourges, formally known as Avaricum but it could equally well apply to Aquitania with it's capital Bordeaux which was the main city of the southern Bituriges in Aquitania. The best landing place of Saintes (Mediolanum), 100km north of Bordeaux, was also a sea port whilst Bourges lays well inland and in no way could be described as by the sea. The only other way if Bourges/Avaricum was meant was to sail up the Loire as far as Angers and then go overland or transfer to hundreds of smaller boats. But this would appear to be a strange route to take if you were either in Britain or Armorica. The overland route from Armorica would have been much easier.

Aqiuitania would make much more sense of Riotimus arriving in Ships from either Armorica or Britain. Anthemius became Emperor in 467, so it can only be after this time that Riotimus was called. So lets say Riotimus arrived in 469 (Hydatius nor Gregories sources for the time before this mention him). The ‘intelligence’ that Anthemius received was probably the betrayal of Arvandus in 468.

Anthemius had withdrawn the Fedorati troops(or rather Ricimer had) that formed the barrier between the Goths below the Loire and the Armoricans and Gauls north of the Loire and so this has caused a power vacuum that the Goths wanted to fill . Following the Gothic attack on Bourges,the slaughter of the Britons at Déols and the threat to Angers and other cities Anthemius decided on a grand plan to take on the Goths. He therefore called on Riotimus from Britain to protect the Loire region and possibly, as detailed below later, launch a two pronged attack on Euric.

"Euric, king of the Visigoths, came against them leading an innumerable army, and fighting for a long time, overcame Riothimus, the king of the Britons, before the Romans had joined company with him.

So the battle took place sometime around 469/70 (Mathisen 1998, Gaul and Visigothic war) (Higham, 2002, P.76). That's a good 3-4 years difference between the Britons being defeated at Déols. It can only be reconciled if Gregory's chronology is incorrect but that doesn't seem to be so. Note that Riotimus had expected a Roman army to meet up with him ( “before the Romans had joined company with him”)

"Having lost a great part of his army, he fled with all whom he could save, and came to the neighbouring nation of the Burgundians, then confederate with the Romans. But Euric, king of the Visigoths, seized Auvergne(*), a city of Gaul."

469/470. But why go to the Burgundians, why not head north back to Britain? It implies Riotimus had dealings with or knew the Burgundians fairly well and probably made his way back north after this or the battle was farther south and east. In his book, The Britons, Christopher Snyder makes the same conclusion, translating civitatem Bituriges as the state of Aquitania. (2003, P.148) and has Riotimus land in Aquitania, not Bourges. The ideal place to land in Aquitania to pick up the Roman road to Auvergne would be Saintes which is just 100km north of Bordeaux. From Saintes the road leads to Limoges and then onto Auvergne/Clermont. The distances say it all. From Saintes to Clermont is about 220 miles. From Armorica overland its about 400 miles.

As I have mentioned earlier above, Arvandus was prosecuted for trying to betray the Britons north of the Loire and did not have anything to do with betraying Riotimus. Riotimus was not even in the country. So we need not locate Riotimus north of the Loire at all. It is most likely he landed in Aquitania.

The letter of Sidonius to Riotimus places Riotimus near Auvergne possibly some time before 468( as Sidonius was in Rome as Urban Prefect from 468 until 470 and Clermont was under siege from 471-474) or after 476 when Sidonius returned from exile. The letter intimates that Sidonius and Riotimus had exchanged letters on previous occasions, meaning Riotimus may either have been in Gaul before and had returned to Britain on a previous occasion before returning once more for Anthemius, or Riotimus was in northern Gaul/Armorica all along, or as I believe, all the communication was post battle, either just after the battle in 470/71 or after Sidonius returned from exile in 476.

Sidonius did not become bishop of Clermont until he returned in 470 from Rome. So if the letter intimates that he has the position of a Bishop or clergy, which appears to be so ("which a man of my order" ) we then know that it couldn't have been written before 468. That only leaves a small window in 470/1 when Euric had defeated Riotimus and turned to face Anthemiolus in Arles when the letter could have been written, or it was after the seige of Auvergne and the exile of Sidonius until 476. The letter to Riotmius appears in a sequence that shows it was written post battle and post seige as before this letter comes one where Sidonius writes of the heroics of Ecidicius as though it were quite some time ago and shouldn't be forgotten. However, scholars are of the opinion that these letters do not always appear in sequence. So a dating in 470/71 may not be out of the question, post battle.

Anthemius

It appears that Anthemius had planned to take out the Vandals and the Goths with grand attacks in 469/70. His plan for Euric was a two pronged attack (MacGeorge 2002, p.243) and so landed Riotimus in Aquitania, probably near Saintes and sent his son's (Athemiolus') army to link up with Riotimus from the south. From Aquitania Riotimus made his way across land towards Auvergne/Clermont where Euric had gone to lay siege to it, as indicated above(*) . So the battle most likely took place somewhere near modern day Clermont Ferrand with Burgundy just a short distance away towards the east.

The story of Ecdicius and his heroics against the Goths beseiging Auvergne belongs to this time when Riotimus was approaching in 469/70. But the story of Ecdicius is exaggerated as the Goths had withdrawn from Clermont to a nearby hill due to the approach of Riotimus, and Ecdicius had only killed some slow stragglers (Ecdicius was known to be in Clermont from 469 after leaving the court of Anthemius). To those inside the city Ecdidcius with his eighteen men had incredibly defeated thousands of Goths and so the myth was created. Here is part of the letter of Sidonius to Ecdicius which confirms Ecidicus had merely chased off the rearguard as Euric was withdrawing :

"At midday, and right across the middle of the plain, you brought your little company of eighteen safe through some thousands of the Goths, a feat which posterity will surely deem incredible. At the sight of you, nay, at the very rumour of your name, those seasoned troops were smitten with stupefaction; their captains were so amazed that they never stopped to note how great their own numbers were and yours how small. They drew off their whole force to the brow of a steep hill; they had been besiegers before, but when you appeared they dared not even deploy for action. You cut down some of their bravest, whom gallantry alone had led to defend the rear."

So, Riotimus approached, probably sometime in 470 hoping that the Roman army under the command of Anthemiolus, son of the Emperor Anthemius would arrive at the same time to help defeat the Goths of Euric. Unfortunately Anthemiolus was late or Rio was early , Euric broke the siege of Auvergne and attacked Riotimus and defeated him after a long battle. Riotimus fled eastwards to the nearby Burgundians who were short hop over the border towards Lyon.

Euric returned to besiege Auvergne again in 471 after defeating the army of Anthemiolus near Arles. We can only assume he obtained intelligence from captured Britons that informed him that Anthemiolus was on the way as Euric was able to meet Anthemiolus practically as he got off his ships near Arles, southern France. The city of Auvergne/Clermont was ceded in 474 and Sidonius was exiled to the Pyrenees. All these events show the timing is crucial for the battle. It could only have happened sometime around 469-470 at the latest. It is also evident that as Arvandus had been arrested in 468 he could have had nothing to do with `betraying' Riotimus as is so often said. He tried to betray the Romanised Britons of Northern Gaul yes, but not Riotimus.

If Riotimus did land at in the state of Aquitania somewhere then the possibility of ships from Armorica is more plausible, possibly from Vannes, Nantes or Quimper but this would admit the presence of Britons in Armorica in 469 which is certainly possible as the exodus had begun by this time . The only way for 12,000 men though is if there were many more settlements in Northern Gaul of Britons following Constantine's campaign in 409-411 and possibly British forces in the army of Aetius in the mid 450's and possible exodus following the Saxon incursions. In 469 I am doubtful whether that many Britons could be raised in Armorica from the early British settlements. So Riotimus most likely came from southern Britain.

For Riotimus to have been based in Britain and raise 12000 men the implication is that the Saxons were under control/defeated. This is evident from Gildas who shows that Ambrosius had indeed defeated the Saxons auxiliaries who had rebelled in the 450's. So it's quite possible that Riotimus was from Britain. It is evident though that as the battle was near Auvergne/Clermont then we can discard the link with Avalon which was much further North and hence discard the association of Riotimus with Arthur. Indeed, if Riothamus was defeated at Deols, how would he then ‘retreat’ by going eastwards through lands just lost to the Goths. It’s ludicrous, he would just have popped over the Loire to safety. So he was nowhere near this battle or even in the country at the time.

If Sidonius' letter to Riotimus was after the siege of Clermont (when Sidonius had returned from exile in the confines of the fortress of Livia, near Carcassonne and then after in Bordeaux), ie 476, then it indicates that Riothamus was now settled in the region with the remnants of his British army. The indication that his men are tempting slaves away from other landowners suggests the Britons needed workers for their new found land on the borders of Clermont and Lyon. Lyon since 458 was Burgundian. However at this time in 476 Sidonius was no longer a Bishop of Auvergne but he may still have been under Holy Orders. This leaves then only one other possibility, when the letters to Riothamus could have been written, and that was in 470/471, the short time after Riothamus was defeated and Euric had travelled south to take on Anthemiolus. Which it was is debatable, but due to the deference shown to Riothamus by Sidonius in the existing letter I would place it after his return from exile.

The main arguments presented here are that:

The battle of Bourges Deols took place in 465/6 long before Riotimus was called to Gaul. It couldn't have been any later than 467 as this is when Gregory's sequence of events ends, with earthquake mentioned in 467.
Arvandus was under arrest in 468, again before Riotimus had entered Gaul.
The letter from Sidonius to Riotimus couldn't have been written before 470/71 when Sidonius was made Bishop. So the letter was post battle.
The battle that Riotimus fought with Euric was near Auvergne, now Clermont Ferrand and he fled towards the nearby border of Burgundy in the direction of Lyon.
Riotimus landed in the state of Bituriges which is Aquitania, not Bourges.
The myth of Ecdicius defeating thousands of Goths is just that a myth. Euric was withdrawing to a hill to face Riotimus and Ecdicius only took out some stragglers.

References:

History of the Franks, Gregory of Tours, 6thC

http://www.celtic-twilight.com/charlemagne/gregory_of_tours/gothof_b1.htm

Hydatius, Latin 5thC:

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0776/__P1.HTM

Life of St Genevieve, 6thC

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/golden216.htm

Jordanes, 6thC:

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/Goths/Goths1.htm

Letters of Sidonius, 5thC

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/sidonius_letters_01book1.htm

Life of Sidonius - Lecture, Lynn Harry Nelson, Emeritus Professor of

Medieval History, The University of Kansas.

http://www.vlib.us/medieval/lectures/sidonius.html

Anthemius - By Ralph W. Mathison Ph.D, University of South Carolina 1998

King Arthur: Myth-Making and History By N. J. Higham, 2002, Routledge.

Late Roman Warlords, 2002 Penny MacGeorge, Oxford University Press

Dark Age TV - Secrets of the Dark Ages

2011-07-31T00:25:00.000+01:00

The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain was a consequence of the migration of Germanic peoples from continental Germania during the Early Middle Ages, after the demise of Roman rule in the 5th century. These peoples are traditionally divided into Angles, Saxons and Jutes, but historical and archaeological research conducted in the early 20th century suggests that a wide range of Germanic peoples from the North Sea coasts of Frisia, Lower Saxony, and Jutland may have moved to Britain in this era, including Frisians and Franks. In their new homeland, they consolidated into unified Germanic identities through war and other forms of social interaction.

In the late sixth century the king of Kent was a prominent lord in the south; in the seventh century the rulers of Northumbria and Wessex were powerful; for a brief period around the year 616, East Anglia was the most powerful of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England, and its king Raedwald was Bretwalda (overlord of the Anglo-Saxons kingdoms). In the eighth century Mercia achieved hegemony over the other surviving kingdoms. Successive kings of Wessex (and especially Æthelstan) progressively reinforced the English unitary state, until, with the simultaneous dissolution of Mercia and submission of Northumbria upon Edgar's succession in 959, the old constituent kingdoms in effect became consolidated into one.

Christianity - A History

2011-07-30T10:40:00.000+01:00

Theologian Robert Beckford 's personal view of the dark ages in which he explores how warring pagan tribes became one nation under a single religion - Christianity and asks if this is the most misunderstood and underrated moment in Britain's history.

In this extraordinary story, which begins with the fall of the Roman Empire 400 years after the birth of Jesus, we chart the precarious survival of Christianity in the Celtic West and Ireland following a struggle for souls between three different religious traditions: the warrior pagan religion of the Anglo-Saxons, Celtic Christianity and a resurgent Roman Christianity, which arrived with St Augustine in 597.

With the aid of noted experts in the field, Robert reveals how these conflicts were resolved and why Christianity was a vital element in the eighth century creation of an alternative identity for the English peoples. This was a spectacular cultural achievement with a revolutionary agenda, which became, in the Kingdom of King Alfred, the basis of the nation we live in today.

Dark Age TV - The Franks

2011-07-25T22:14:00.000+01:00

The Franks were a West Germanic confederation, uniting the peoples in Magna Germania north and east of the Lower Rhine River. Modern scholars of the Migration Period are in agreement that the Frankish identity emerged in the first half of the 3rd century out of various Germanic groups, including the Salii, Sicambri, Chamavi, Bructeri, Chatti, Chattuarii, Ampsivarii, Tencteri, Ubii, Batavi and the Tungri, who inhabited the area between the Zuyder Zee and the river Lahn and extended eastwards as far as the Weser, but were most densely settled around the IJssel and between the Lippe and the Sieg.

From the third to fifth centuries the Frankish armies raided Roman territory and expanded their influence among the Germanic peoples previously living under Roman rule on the left bank of the Rhine. In 358, the Salian Franks came to some form of agreement with the Romans that allowed them to settle in Toxandria (roughly Noord-Brabant, Antwerpen and Vlaams-Brabant).

Each tribe within the Frankish confederation consisted of extended kinship groups centred around a particularly renowned and noble family. The importance of the family bond was made clear by the Salic Law, which ordained that an individual had no right to protection if not part of a family.

Dark Age TV - The Book of Kells

2011-07-25T21:53:00.000+01:00

The Book of Kells (Irish: Leabhar Cheanannais) (Dublin, Trinity College Library, MS A. I. (58), sometimes known as the Book of Columba) is an illuminated manuscript in Latin, containing the four Gospels of the New Testament together with various prefatory texts and tables. It was transcribed by Celtic monks ca. 800. The text of the Gospels is largely drawn from the Vulgate, although it also includes several passages drawn from the earlier versions of the Bible known as the Vetus Latina. It is a masterwork of Western calligraphyand represents the pinnacle of Insular illumination. It is also widely regarded as Ireland's finest national treasure.

The illustrations and ornamentation of the Book of Kells surpass that of other Insular Gospels in extravagance and complexity. The decoration combines traditional Christian iconography with the ornate swirling motifs typical of Insular art. Figures of humans, animals and mythical beasts, together with Celtic knots and interlacing patterns in vibrant colours, enliven the manuscript's pages. Many of these minor decorative elements are imbued with Christian symbolism and so further emphasise the themes of the major illustrations.

The manuscript today comprises 340 folios and, since 1953, has been bound in four volumes. The leaves are on high-quality calf vellum, and the unprecedentedly elaborate ornamentation that covers them includes ten full-page illustrations and text pages that are vibrant with historiated initials and interlinear miniatures and mark the furthest extension of the anti-classical and energetic qualities of Insular art. The Insular majuscule script of the text itself appears to be the work of at least three different scribes. The lettering is in iron-gall ink, and the colours used were derived from a wide range of substances, many of which were imports from distant lands.

The manuscript takes its name from the Abbey of Kells that was its home for centuries. Today, it is on permanent display at the Trinity College Library, Dublin. The library usually displays two of the current four volumes at a time, one showing a major illustration and the other showing typical text pages.

Music by K. Jarrett, 'Hymn of Release'.

Dark Age TV - Age Of Conquest

2011-07-25T21:42:00.000+01:00

David Dimbleby tells the story of Anglo-Saxon England through its art and treasure: The burial treasure of Sutton Hoo, Anglo-Saxon poetry and Alfred the Great's Jewel. In Florence, a beautiful illuminated Bible made by Northumbrian monks in the 8th century; in Normandy, the Bayeux Tapestry, now believed to have been made by English nuns. He ends at the Tower of London, now seen as a symbol of Britishness but originally built by William the Conqueror to subdue the people of England.

Dark Age TV - A History of Scotland with Neil Oliver

2011-07-25T18:48:00.000+01:00

Dark Age TV - Tintagel Castle

2011-07-25T18:27:00.000+01:00

Dark Age TV - The Lindisfarne Gospels

2011-07-25T18:06:00.000+01:00

Dark Age TV - The Celts

2011-07-25T17:27:00.000+01:00

Dark Age TV - The Anglo Saxons

2011-07-25T17:25:00.000+01:00

Dark Age TV - The Dark Ages

2011-07-25T17:12:00.000+01:00

At its height in the second century A.D., the Roman Empire was the beacon of learning, power, and prosperity in the western world. But the once-powerful Rome - rotten to the core by the fifth century - lay open to barbarian warriors who came in wave after wave of invasion, slaughtering, stealing, and ultimately, settling. As chaos replaced culture, Europe was beset by famine, plague, persecutions, and a state of war that was so persistent it was only rarely interrupted by peace. THE DARK AGES profiles those who battled to shape the future, from the warlords whose armies threatened to cause the demise of European society, such as Alaric, Charles the Hammer, and Clovis; to the men and women who valiantly tended the flames of justice, knowledge, and innovation including Charlemagne, St. Benedict, Empress Theodora, and other brave souls who fought for peace and enlightenment. It was in the shadows of this turbulent millennium that the seeds of modern civilization were sown.