RomanArmyTalk

Here’s a one for all, but especially Robert:

As the story goes, Vortigern asked the Saxons (Jutes? Whoever) to help defend Britannia from those nasty Picts. There have been numerous theories on this event but very little on where the hell he might have put them and why there’s no reference to the Irish raiders? I’m not so interested in who Vortigern was, but his actions, and I’d love to hear the views of those here on the subject.

At the time, Britannia had supposedly been stripped bare of it’s fighting men by Maximus and Constantine so Vortigern, the High King - of what exactly no one’s sure - does the Roman thing of bringing in federates to help. But where were they stationed? All over Britannia? The two eastern provinces? The north? If it’s Picts, where were they attacking from? The sea? Were they getting through the Gododdin northern buffer zone? If so how was Cunedda able to move to Wales to defend against the Irish around the same time? If, indeed, it was the same time.

It would seem it had to be from either the north or the eastern seaboard. If so, that’s where you need the help. Or has the Irish raiding simply been left out of the surviving texts because at the time the Anglo-Saxons were the problem and the eastern Hibernian raiders (Irish) had been forgotten about? Did others have the say in the west as to who their federates were and they brought over Irish?

Was it only the remaining cities who used the federates and not provinces, or were they used by anyone who could afford them? Were they also used against other Germanic invaders, even though they’re not mentioned?

If St Germanus supposedly defeated Saxon and Pictish raiders somewhere near Llangollen, what the hell were they doing there? Or is it more likely this happened in the east? Or didn’t it happen at all?

All answers on a postcard to...

Quote:As the story goes, Vortigern asked the Saxons (Jutes? Whoever) to help defend Britannia from those nasty Picts. There have been numerous theories on this event but very little on where the hell he might have put them and why there’s no reference to the Irish raiders? I’m not so interested in who Vortigern was, but his actions, and I’d love to hear the views of those here on the subject.

One, you should probably not think of thousands of troops, meaning we might not be able to see where they were stationed.
Two, it's possible that these troops functioned within the context of what was the remnant of a Late Roman provincial military structure. Later sources talk about kings and High kings and what not, but if you read Gildas (who wrote three quarters of a century after the fact) you don't get that picture. Most likely, the structures of Roman Britain still functioned. Hence, these Germanic troops might have been armed, stationed and commanded as other troops on the island, and therefore no more or less visible than the other troops.
Three, Gildas may not have been feeling the Irish raiders very much (maybe in his day the Germanic newcomers were an immensely bigger problem) for him to mention them very much. But we know that they had been a problem before (much burning in the Gloucester area) and we know they remained a problem (Wales). We also see evidence of military activity in the Severn area, so maybe the Britons had done something to address the problem.

Quote:At the time, Britannia had supposedly been stripped bare of it’s fighting men by Maximus and Constantine so Vortigern, the High King - of what exactly no one’s sure - does the Roman thing of bringing in federates to help. But where were they stationed? All over Britannia? The two eastern provinces? The north? If it’s Picts, where were they attacking from? The sea? Were they getting through the Gododdin northern buffer zone? If so how was Cunedda able to move to Wales to defend against the Irish around the same time? If, indeed, it was the same time.

There is no evidence for Britannia being stripped of troops By either Magnus Maximus nor Constantine III. As to the Germanic troops being stationed anywhere, I’d say the lower Midlands or the West Country, or all of the above, my favourite spot is still Dorchester on Thames.
Don’t take some of the literal evidence too literal – to Gildas, the Picts were a problem, so the Saxons had to be the help against that. But the Wall area seems to have been a strong military zone anyway, so why the need for such troops? Maybe the Saxons were, after all, a replacement for the mobile troops possible taken to the continent by the aforementioned usurpers. In that case they probably had no one enemy to fight, and no one area where they were stationed.

Quote:It would seem it had to be from either the north or the eastern seaboard. If so, that’s where you need the help. Or has the Irish raiding simply been left out of the surviving texts because at the time the Anglo-Saxons were the problem and the eastern Hibernian raiders (Irish) had been forgotten about? Did others have the say in the west as to who their federates were and they brought over Irish?

See above. As to the choice of federates, I don’t have a clue about how the system worked in detail. Were all the civitates working together or just the southern ones? Was Old King Cole in fact already controlling the North, as we might conclude from the pedigrees which he seems to dominate? Does that mean that Vortigern headed a southern confederation or was he in fact holding a leftover function from Late Roman times? Questions, questions, not too many answers..

Quote:Was it only the remaining cities who used the federates and not provinces, or were they used by anyone who could afford them? Were they also used against other Germanic invaders, even though they’re not mentioned?

Or, more importantly, were they used against other Britons?

Quote:If St Germanus supposedly defeated Saxon and Pictish raiders somewhere near Llangollen, what the hell were they doing there? Or is it more likely this happened in the east? Or didn’t it happen at all?

It did not happen. Germanus had a real-life biographer who had to scrape together some minor miracles. If Germanus had actually been involved in any military victory while in Britain, there would no doubt have been an account of that (miracle or not) in that biography.

Thanks for all that Robert, very thought provoking.

Quote:One, you should probably not think of thousands of troops, meaning we might not be able to see where they were stationed.

Absolutely.

Quote:Two, it's possible that these troops functioned within the context of what was the remnant of a Late Roman provincial military structure. Later sources talk about kings and High kings and what not, but if you read Gildas (who wrote three quarters of a century after the fact) you don't get that picture. Most likely, the structures of Roman Britain still functioned. Hence, these Germanic troops might have been armed, stationed and commanded as other troops on the island, and therefore no more or less visible than the other troops.

I agree that the provincial structure was still there, possibly up until the 440s at a stretch. There's certainly the evidence for Britannia Prima. The story may be just that, but as it stands the Saxons seem to be brought in as commanders as well as troops. Whether they were called Horsa and Hengist or not is another matter (the Gallic Chronicles gives another name) but the same source that tells us about the superbus tyrannus (later identified by Bede as Vortigern) tells us this is what happened. Do we believe the Vortigern part and not the other? Possibly, but the possibility that these were units (Saxon or Brit-Saxon) commanded by Saxons can’t be ruled out.

Quote:Three, Gildas may not have been feeling the Irish raiders very much (maybe in his day the Germanic newcomers were an immensely bigger problem) for him to mention them very much. But we know that they had been a problem before (much burning in the Gloucester area) and we know they remained a problem (Wales). We also see evidence of military activity in the Severn area, so maybe the Britons had done something to address the problem.

It all depends where Gildas was I suppose. Ogham stones also seem to predate 550 so the problem could well have subsided by the time of Gildas’ writing. However, it's still uncertain as to how many of these Goidel speaker were native, or long settled and who were raiders. It would also seem that by Gildas' time the Irish problem was up the north. There was supposedly a war with the Irish Demetea in 435.

Quote:There is no evidence for Britannia being stripped of troops By either Magnus Maximus nor Constantine III.

Apart from Gildas telling us so and that being the reason why they needed to use federates. "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." Strange that he doesn't mention Constantine III. But you're right, there's no actual evidence, but it makes you wonder why they needed the Germans... or English Saxons, or whatever they were if they were OK for troops. It’s possible that it was the east that was depleted and the west wasn’t in such a bad way... although Mixumus did leave Segontium empty and, if correct, Cunneda had to come to their rescue.

Quote:As to the Germanic troops being stationed anywhere, I’d say the lower Midlands or the West Country, or all of the above, my favourite spot is still Dorchester on Thames.

We know they were in the Thames Valley as settlers. But why those places? Who were they helping to protecting who from? One province from another? If so, then Vortigern couldn't have held the whole of Britannia under his power or even the 3 southern provinces. This would seem more like east against west?

Quote:Don’t take some of the literal evidence too literal...

I try not to take Gildas too literally, his work was a biblical polemic, but I don't think we can ignore everything he says.

Quote:– to Gildas, the Picts were a problem, so the Saxons had to be the help against that.

Why were the Picts a problem to Gildas who, by most people’s reckoning was writing in the south, unless they were raiding there in his time?

Quote:But the Wall area seems to have been a strong military zone anyway, so why the need for such troops?

That's what's always puzzled me. This is why, if Picts or even other Germanic raiders are the problem then you need to place the Saxons exactly where Gildas says: in the east and, one would think, near estuaries where seaborne pirates will enter your territory... if the problem was an external one. The Saxon Shore forts, for example.

Quote:Maybe the Saxons were, after all, a replacement for the mobile troops possible taken to the continent by the aforementioned usurpers. In that case they probably had no one enemy to fight, and no one area where they were stationed.

IF Gildas is right then they were certainly mobile as they raided from coast to coast. But I wonder if during the Saxon uprising these were actually two pronged raids from the west, by Hibernian federates and the east, but Germanic. It wouldn’t have been the first time.

Quote:As to the choice of federates, I don’t have a clue about how the system worked in detail. Were all the civitates working together or just the southern ones? Was Old King Cole in fact already controlling the North, as we might conclude from the pedigrees which he seems to dominate? Does that mean that Vortigern headed a southern confederation or was he in fact holding a leftover function from Late Roman times? Questions, questions, not too many answers...

Yes, the name may not like to be used anymore, but they're not called the Dark Ages for nothing. We mustn't forget that Angles appeared in the north and they either did so at the invitation of the north as anti-Picts, because they'd been there as federates on the Wall for a long time, or they raided and stayed.

Quote:Or, more importantly, were they used against other Britons?

There is that. I suppose that over the time they were used things changed. Their role could have started in the east against raiders then, as the provinces fell apart, were used by kingdoms/provinces against one another. The only downside to that argument is the Saxon uprising supposedly happening because they weren't paid. If, indeed, that is true, it would seem to have to have been a centrally controlled system for it to affect all the federates. Unless it only happened to a few and the rest just joined in an "one out, all out brothers!" action. Or that was only an excuse and they saw the crumbling provinces, and their swelling numbers, as an opportunity to go west young man.

Many thanks for your excellent thoughts Robert. I know this kind of discussion can leave more questions than answers but just to be thinking about it is helpful... certainly to me! Even academic scholars of the period have trouble and very rarely agree with one another but the major debate seems to be about what happened after the Saxons began their move west and not about just what the Saxon federates were doing here exactly and where they might have been. It’s a Catch 22 situation really. Unless we know the political state of Britannia at the time we don’t know where they might be used and by whom, but by knowing where they were and how they were used we might know the political makeup of the provinces.We can only came up with theories and models and see how they play out.

Thanks again and look forward to more thoughts from all.

Good discussion.

Whoever took them, after AD 410 Britannia seemed bereft of Roman fighting forces. Given that those left behind were being pressed from several sides, one man--especially if he had ambitions (or delusions) of supremacy--may have sought the standard Roman (federatii) solution only to have it backfire.

We know so little, but it is so tantalizing.

Well I may be wrong, but as Vortigern was the "King" of Kent, I had have always assumed that Hengist and Horsa were engaged for the defence of the south-eastern extremity of Britain.

Hengist (or was it Horsa) was supposed to have married Princess Rowena, the king's daughter, and established a mixed Celtic-Saxon dynasty in what became the Kingdom of Kent - place name evidence shows a great deal of Celtic continuity, which addes support to the idea that the Saxons came to Kent by invitation.

I had never considered the idea of Hengist & Horsa being anywhere near Dorchester-on-Thames, which was West Saxon territory and had been occupied by raiders who had presumably sailed up the Thames.

Quote:Well I may be wrong, but as Vortigern was the "King" of Kent, I had have always assumed that Hengist and Horsa were engaged for the defence of the south-eastern extremity of Britain.

Hengist (or was it Horsa) was supposed to have married Princess Rowena, the king's daughter, and established a mixed Celtic-Saxon dynasty in what became the Kingdom of Kent - place name evidence shows a great deal of Celtic continuity, which addes support to the idea that the Saxons came to Kent by invitation.

I had never considered the idea of Hengist & Horsa being anywhere near Dorchester-on-Thames, which was West Saxon territory and had been occupied by raiders who had presumably sailed up the Thames.

'Sound of can of worms opening' :wink:

I know what a Saxon is supposed to be(hairy, smelly, Germanic type with a habit of taking other peoples property :lol: ) but what's a Celt? Did we ever have them in Britannia? Thought we had Romano-British and some wild border tribes,don't remember Celts here? :? Central Europe maybe?

Digs in for counter attack :lol:

Do we have a record of how many place names claim connection with Vortigern,and making an assumption Hengist & Horsa?

I don't think there are any place names relating to Vortigern, Hengist or Horsa, apart from (possibly) Hengistbury Head. There is no firm evidence that Vortigern ever existed - the name appears to have been introduced by Bede. Hengist and Horsa are mentioned in various other sources, inlcuding entries in The Anglo Saxon Chronicle, circa 449 to 473, which record the establshment of an English kingdom in Kent. There are also stories of an attack on the Saxon Shore fort at Pevensey, which led to the creation of a Saxon kingdom in Sussex.

There nothing saying Vortigern was a 'king' of Kent. He may have married a Saxon's daughter of the region, if the stories are right, but that's the only thing to place him there.

Robert will be able to give the details better than I, but there are a number of places named after him in the west, from Wiltshire to west Wales, under his British name, Guorthigirn and Gwrtheyrn. This is what is so confusing about the whole matter.

If you want to learn more, go to Robert's site,Vortigern Strudies: [url:e36nspao]http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/questhomepage.htm[/url]

Hi Euryalus,

Please enter your real (first) name in your signature (the one in your profile). It's a forum rule.

Quote: There is no firm evidence that Vortigern ever existed - the name appears to have been introduced by Bede. Hengist and Horsa are mentioned in various other sources, inlcuding entries in The Anglo Saxon Chronicle, circa 449 to 473, which record the establshment of an English kingdom in Kent. There are also stories of an attack on the Saxon Shore fort at Pevensey, which led to the creation of a Saxon kingdom in Sussex.

There's plenty of evidence that Vortigern existed. And no, the name was not introduced by Bede, but is also present in other MSS, such as some by Gildas and other sources ( http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artwho/name.htm )

Indeed, Vortigern was never 'king of Kent', although his rule may have extended to Kent. Hengist & Horsa are the later persons who are linked to Gildas' early 6th-c. description of Saxons being hired against the Pictish threat. Of Horsa we have little or no corroberating evidence, but Hengist is most likely mentioned in other (later) sources such as the Beowulf poem and the Finnesburgh Fragment, dating to c. 1000 AD).

The material about Pevensey is limited to an entry in one of the MSS underlying what we now call the Anglo-Saxon chronicle. This ASC was 'put together' around the time of Alfred of Wessex (847-899 AD) and is not reconed to give us exact details and dates for the time before the mid-6th c.

Having said that, I do agree with your ideas about what area the brothers were supposed to guard. Gildas' ideas about British defence seem overly engaged with explaining the 'why's' of the Saxon Coming, anyway. There's no evidence of any 'Pictish Wars' besides his sermon and lament, so they may have been the 'cooked-up' reason to explain why Vortigern and the British Council needed to get Germanic troops anyway. That these had been present in Britain since Julius Caesar brought the first would of course have been unknown to Gildas. And that many Roman soldiers from different parts of Germany had been present in the Late Roman forts of Britain would have maybe suprised Gildas too.

To me, H&H were part of such soldiers and hardly a new group representing a new defense concept at all. 8)

As I understand it, Gildas referred to the British "king" not by name but as a "superbus tyrannus", whereas Bede, writing long after the events he was describing, called him Vortigern. That is why I have suggested that Bede introduced the name into what had, by his lifetime, become a coherent narrative.

The name "Hengist" may have been a common name at that time, and there is no evidence that the Hengist mentioned in Boewulf (from Denmark) was the same one who later turned up in the Kentish legends. The version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to which I have referred, which mentions Hengist and Horsa is the "A" text.

My main point, however, was not about the reality (or otherwise) of the Hengist and Horsa legend - I was simply pointing out that these stories are associated with Kent and the south-eastern extrmity of Britannia.

Quote:As I understand it, Gildas referred to the British "king" not by name but as a "superbus tyrannus", whereas Bede, writing long after the events he was describing, called him Vortigern. That is why I have suggested that Bede introduced the name into what had, by his lifetime, become a coherent narrative.

If you'd read the article to which I provided a link you'd have read that the 'superbus tyrannus' is not a description of a title but a pun on a name. It translates as 'proud usurper' and refers to the legitimacy of the man whose name is punned. Some MS of Gildas' work, as I've pointed out, indeed mention the name Vortigern. Gildas also clearly wrote that the 'superbus tyrannus' did not rule alone but decided together with a council.

Bede, of whom we are almost 100% certain that he did not have another source available for the early 5th c. besides Gildas, certainly mentions Vortigern, thereby making is more likely that he had the name from Gildas. Bede does refer to Vortigern as king and leaves out the council, but most later sources do that – to them that political organisation was no longer known, I imagine.

Quote:The name "Hengist" may have been a common name at that time, and there is no evidence that the Hengist mentioned in Boewulf (from Denmark) was the same one who later turned up in the Kentish legends.

It might and it might not. Do you know of other persons named Hengist in sources of that period?
Sure, there is a chance that the Hengist from Beowulf and Finnesburgh Fragment was a different man from the guy who worked for Vortigern. But chances are he wasn’t. That Hengist killed his lord and had plenty of reasons to become an exile seeking new employment – exactly the guy described by Gildas, even though he did not name Hengist in person.

Quote:My main point, however, was not about the reality (or otherwise) of the Hengist and Horsa legend - I was simply pointing out that these stories are associated with Kent and the south-eastern extrmity of Britannia.

To which I agree.

Arising from the generally-agreed point about Vortigern, Hengist and Horsa being associated with Kent, it seems pertinent to emphasise my other point about 50 per cent of the place names in Kent being Celtic, or having Celtic elements. This would seem to reinforce the Hengist and Horsa legend in that, if they came to Kent by invitation rather than as conquerors, there would have been a greater degree of Romano-British continuity in that part of Britannia than might otherwise have been the case.

Reading back through this thread, it seems to me that nobody has considered the other question that has been raised about the Irish invasion(s) of Britannia after the departure of the regular Roman legions. Thinking, once again, about place name evidence, it is surely significant that most, if not all, of the ancient churches in north Cornwall are dedicated to Irish saints - which would imply a large Irish influx.

Place name evidence is also supported by the much more tenuous evidence provided by folk lore and legend - in which case we might think particularly of Tristan and Iseult, an Irish princess. The story of St Patrick is also highly significant - the young Patrick being captured (possibly from the Solway area) by Irish raiders and taken back to Ireland as a slave. All of this implies that there must have been a serious threat from Ireland, in addition to the threat posed by the Picts and Saxons.

Hi Stanley, I actually referred to the Irish in the first thread, and in some following ones too. It would seem that Cunedag was dealing with these down the western side of what is now England and Wales. But it is very possible that many had been settlers for many years and there are some who argue that the western seaboard was Goidelic speaking until the Brythonic speakers either threw them out or dominated them. Demetia, modern day Dyfed, was an Irish Desi kingdom... as far as we can tell.

What is interesting is that it's always the Scotti and the Picts that are mentioned. Now 'Picts' could mean many different painted people but Scotti is very specific. However, there's no mention of other Irish invaders? Why? Was this because they just weren't a threat by Gildas' time or for some other reason? As Robert said, he may have simply used the names of those who were a threat during his own time.

Gildas does say that the Saxons were used to also defend against a possible Roman invasion, which may be a load of bull, but that makes sense of placing them in Kent, the closest area to Gaul. Then again, this is where they were supposedly settled and doesn't mean this is where they were serving originally. Until we know exactly who threat was and were is was coming from, we may never know where they were stationed.

I know that the Irish were mentioned, but what I was trying to say was that this part of the question had not been fully explored, which is why I felt that place name evidence was significant. My own view about the far west, is that the people in those parts of Britain were Goidelic Celts and, as such, they were probably associating with the Irish in a variety of ways during the Roman period - which meant that they would not see the Irish as "bad guys".

As a matter of interest, when I was an undergraduate at the University of Lancaster I was surprised to find that the campus was located at a place called Bailrigg - an obvious Irish name, albeit with a Viking suffix.