Appearence and tactics of early 5th century Saxons.

[Robert Vermaat]

Pryor insisted that the end of Roman administration in the 5th c. would have had all the British farmers shouting 'Whoopee! - No more taxes!' To which Harke replied: "Hmmm... very much a farmer's view, I think."

So what is your point? Is Härke disagreeing with Pryor? I seems not, from what I read there.

The point being, of course, Pryor has no conception of the context of
what he is saying. Since the late 2nd c. Anglo-Saxon pirates had been
a threat to British farmers and grain shipments to the continent. We
know this because the earliest Saxon Shore Forts (Reculver, Caistor,
Brancaster) have been dated to before 200 AD in initial construction.
The taxes of British farmers of course paid for the construction and
garrisoning of these forts, in order to protect these same British farmers.
Therefore, come the end of 'Official' Roman administration in the 5thc.
the British farmers would certainly have wanted that taxation system
to have continued, so as to fund the continuing protection of their land
from Anglo-Saxon pirates. The very last thing any British farmer
in the 5th c. would be shouting was 'whoopee!' at the thought of that
taxation/military protection system being removed. 8)

What sources tell us that British grain shipments were actually threatened by Saxon pirates? Of course it seem logical to assume, but was the threat bad enough to warrant a scheme of fort-building on such a scale? A scheme, however, that never seems to have existed at all.
The Saxon Shore forts were not an answer to a threat from the sea. We know this because they are built over a 200-year period, and when the last were built some of the oldest had already been abandoned. Whilst their impressive walls certainly point to impressive defensive measurements, none actually have a harbour or any other shipping/naval facilities that would prove they were built as an answer to such a sea-borne threat. In fact, were it not for their (temporary?) listing in one command in the Notitia Dignitatum, one could doubt that there should be a reason for them to belong to one concept. Besides, excavation has shown that some completely lack evidence of barracks, while on the other hand remain of civilian occupation have been found. There is a school of thought that sees in them not defensive forts but strengthened ware-houses for the gathering of taxes. I would not know how to prove this, but it seems not totally illogical.

Exactly, exactly, exactly! :lol: Why, oh why, do people always assume
that incoming invaders would not need to eat :?: :!: :?: Were they
Martians or something :?:

Well, women are from Venus…
Eat, sure, but so far, no-one has shown that the dangerous raping and plundering pirates stepped off the boat and immediately began to farm. And not only that, they immediately took over the British farms, apparently chased away the owner (or shunned them to death according to Härke) but still continued to farm there as if nothing had happened. Sorry guys, by you may frown on Pryor’s farming experience if you want, but I still think his arguments hold water: if a farm continues to be run year after year, with no change, you can’t tell me that somewhere the British owner was ousted and an Anglo-Saxon took over. Without any change in the pattern on the ground.