The Votadini exodus to Wales

[Robert Vermaat]

Exactly when did the Votadini exodus to Wales, anyway? Perhaps the answer is unknowable, but a rough guess would be interesting to hear. :?:

A good one, aka 'the can of worms'.

Well, here we go.
First of all, there is the Historia Brittonum (9th c.), which claims (chapter 62) that Cunedda migrated to Wales 146 years before Mealgwn reigned.
Ah, I hear you say, let's dated Maelgwn and we have a date! (I would be flattered, but I'd have to turn you down). :wink:
Dating Maelgwn would be equally hazardoes. The (10th- c.) Annales Cambriae claim his death in 547, but that's open to discussion, because the entry itself is suspect. It was almost certainly copied from the earlier Chronicle of Ireland, which originally mentioned a list of Leinster names (not Maglocunus). The Welsh copyist may have had authority to substitute these names, but this is unknown to us. If not, the whole entry is false and any discussion bound to be useless. If we nonetheless accept the date but compare it with Badon (516), it follows that the resulting publishing date for Gildas would be too late, so one of the two is wrong.

Anyway, that's the death of Maelgwn, and we want to accession date, which no-one is providing us with. Gildas tells us that Mealgwn ousted his uncle (and I take that he meant that this was the moment when he took the throne as well) 'While still a youth', probably his early 20s. Date-guessing the floruit of Maelgwn is however even more hazardoes, because if we use the (12th c. and later) pedigrees of the kings of Gwynedd, it's easy to see that usual '30 years to a generation' brings us into trouble with date-guessing (which is, unlike the name suggests, not a game for girls concerning who they bring to the prom 8) ).
We know for instance that Maelgwn's great-grandson Iacob (Iago) died in the battle of Chester (c. 613), and Iago’s grandson Cadwallon died c. 633. If we reckon back, taking the usual 30 years to a generation, this would mean that Maglocunus died c. 484... It is clear that kings can live to 80 or rule for 40 years, or die within months - the 'golden average' will elude us if we do not know the facts, and date-guessing is practically useless when no corroborating evidence exists.
Mealgwn’s floruit could range from about 440 to 530. But don't pin me down on that.

We have similar problem with the 'Cunedda statement'. Cunedda is named as the atavus, which strictly means ‘great- great- great- grandfather’, or rather more simply ‘ancestor’. In most pedigrees, Cunedda is only the great-grandfather of Maglocunus. But Cunedda was already of advanced age when he came to Wales, his sons being old enough to fight battles. If we should date Mealgwn‘s death to AD 547 (but see above), it would imply that Cunedda’s obit is dated to AD 390x400, or else to AD 447x457, and this would put Cunedda's migration in the time of Magnus Maximus.

Other interpretations have dated Cunedda’s migration to AD 401 or even AD 429, acting together with St.Germanus.

[Arturus Uriconium]

Anyway, that's the death of Maelgwn, and we want to accession date, which no-one is providing us with. Gildas tells us that Mealgwn ousted his uncle (and I take that he meant that this was the moment when he took the throne as well) 'While still a youth', probably his early 20s. Date-guessing the floruit of Maelgwn is however even more hazardoes, because if we use the (12th c. and later) pedigrees of the kings of Gwynedd, it's easy to see that usual '30 years to a generation' brings us into trouble with date-guessing (which is, unlike the name suggests, not a game for girls concerning who they bring to the prom 8) ).

Hey Robert, here's one of those worms you mentioned: Gildas tells us that it was Maelgwn's avunculus he "oppressed" in his youth. That is his maternal uncle. So it couldn't be referring to good old Uncle Owein.

Mak

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Mak,

Not sure if this belongs here or on Arthurnet... :wink:

Gildas tells us that it was Maelgwn's avunculus he "oppressed" in his youth. That is his maternal uncle. So it couldn't be referring to good old Uncle Owein.

Well, technically auunculus can mean maternal uncle or mother's brother, indeed. And Owain was neither of these. But it can also mean mother's sister's husband or great uncle, and it might be possible (after all, we have no detailed knowledge of Maelgwn's family) that Owain Ddantgwn was one of the latter two.

[Arturus Uriconium]

Hi Mak,

Not sure if this belongs here or on Arthurnet... :wink:

Gildas tells us that it was Maelgwn's avunculus he "oppressed" in his youth. That is his maternal uncle. So it couldn't be referring to good old Uncle Owein.

Well, technically auunculus can mean maternal uncle or mother's brother, indeed. And Owain was neither of these. But it can also mean mother's sister's husband or great uncle, and it might be possible (after all, we have no detailed knowledge of Maelgwn's family) that Owain Ddantgwn was one of the latter two.

Thanks Robert. Didn't know those other meanings to the word. As you say, it might be possible, but it is so often said as fact, but if it was indeed his mother's brother he oppressed in his youth - and I believe she is said to have been from Arfon - then it changes many things, including the dating for the beginning of his reign and the calculating of Cunedag's 'migration'. :?

Mak

[Arturus Uriconium]

I posted the following in a thread about Valentia but thought it worth posting here as it could affect the 'migration' theory. Apologies that it's so long.

It is said that the so called Barbarian Conspiracy (in 367) involved the Saxons, Picts, Scots and Attacotti. Ammianus tells us that the Saxons and Franks were attacking Gaul, not Britain and when Theodosius arrived on London, we are not told who was doing the attacking, they are just called “roving band of plunderers”. We don’t know who killed the Count of the Saxon Shore but it probably allowed the Picts, if it wasn’t the Saxons, to sail some 500 miles to get to London? If, indeed, they did and these roving bands weren’t the rebellious soldiers?

Ammianus also tells us it included treachery on the frontier defences, army desertion and, two years later, the usurption of the political exile Valentinus (who the new province was not named after). It has also been questioned as to why Ammianus tells us that Count Thoedosius wanted to avoid reprisals for fear of further disturbances.

“...led him [Theodosius], with an eye to the future, to forbid investigations into fellow-conspirators, incase this should spread alarm among many people and stir up again in the province...”

So he’s telling us he didn’t want to stir up a problem within the province again. Was the Barbarian Conspiracy as much a propaganda exaggeration, as argued by some, because Theodosius was the father of the current emperor? (Am I right in saying the supposed attacks appear to be invisible to archaeology?). Was it as much a cover-up for civil unrest caused, or added to, by Valentinus?

Whatever the case, the area most affected was won back and named Valentia after Valentinian III. There are some who argue for Valentia being the Gododdin (Votdinian) region, but, if so, why is it said it was part of a province recently lost and why is there no archaeological evidence of re-occupation? The text doesn’t make it sound like it’s north of the Wall...

“[Theodosius] restored to its former state a province which was recovered that he [Theodosius] had _previously abandoned to enemy rule_. This he did to the extent that it had a properly-appointed governor, and it was from that time onwards known as 'Valentia' by decision of the emperor.” (Ammianus, XXVIII. iii.)

North of the Wall wasn’t abandoned by Theodosius. It sounds to me that this province may have been l’abandoned to the enemy’ in 367 (or before) and wasn’t regained until 369 or later. Considering that he fought against Scots and Picts it could be the northwest below the Wall, the whole area below the Wall or, indeed, anywhere down the western seaboard to North Wales. Professor Birley in his book The Roman Government of Britain believes that Britannia Secunda may have already been divided, possibly north and south as opposed to east and west, with the new part - whatever it was called - being renamed Valentia. Bartholemew (Britannia 15, 1984) argues for Maxima being renamed. Hind (Historia, 23, 1973) suggests the whole diocese was renamed and there are others of course.

As some will know, another candidate is what is now Wales, or a part there-of, which then would have been Britannia Prima. This, I believe, is partly because of a 16th century Breton document that says Brochmael was the king of Gualentius, the Latininized Breton version of Valentia. The only Brochmael known is Brochmael Ysgythrog, as 6th century ruler of Powys. Ann Dornier (Britannia, Vol. 13, (1982), pp. 253-257 ) forcefully argues that it’s possible that what was the northern half of Britannia Prima and the western half of Britannia Secunda became Valentia with the provincial capital at Chester. Below are quotes from her paper:

BROCHMAEL

“The section on S. Sulian in the Lion Breviary of I 516 begins thus: Fuit igitur beatus Sulianus Jilius Bromailli regis nobilissimi qui regnum Britanniae quod Gualentius dicitur suo quondam tempore strenuissime noscitur g~be rnas s e(.The blessed Sulian was the son of the most noble king Bromaillus [sic Brochmael] who is known to have ruled most energetically the kingdom of Britain which formerly in his day was called Gualentius [sic Valentia]). Gualentius is clearly a Latinized Breton rendering of the name Valentia.” (Ann Dornier (Britannia, Vol. 13, (1982), pp. 253)

PROVINCIAL CAPITAL

“Although there are several places which might be properly considered, the weight of evidence seems in favour of Chester. It has been pointed out that by the early third century at the latest the civil settlement of Chester had acquired independent status It was probably the civitas capital of the Deceangli; and by the fourth century the civitas of the Deceangli may have absorbed that of the Cornovii, thus increasing Chester's administrative importance. There is a growing body of archaeological evidence that in the late Roman period Chester was more than just a legionary base with a modest civil settlement: there was clearly a very prosperous civilian population living to the west and south of the fortress; and there is the possibility that in the west at least this area was bounded by a defensive perimeter, marked by the circuit of the medieval west wall. This would bring it into line with such places as York and Lincoln. Moreover, there are hints from post-Roman sources that Chester may have been a late/ sub-Roman ecclesiastical metropolitan, and therefore by definition a provincial capital. Finally, the fortress of Chester may have been of greater military importance in the late period than has hitherto been thought (see below, pp. 257-8), and this may have been a contributory factor in the choice of Chester as the provincial capital of Valentia.” (Ann Dornier (Britannia, Vol. 13, (1982), pp. 255)

CONSULAR

“Why and in what context would a second consular province have been considered necessary or desirable, and why Valentia? Several possibilities present themselves. First it may have had something to do with the imperial ego. If the creation of Valentia was the work of Constans in 343 and if it was originally called Constantia after him, it may have been given consular status at its inception, befitting for a new province named after the victorious emperor. Alternatively, if originally equestrian, its elevation may have gone hand in hand with its renaming after the reigning emperor(s) in 369, perhaps as a way of underlining how great was the imperial victory in recovering the province. Secondly, military considerations may have been the important factor...” (Ann Dornier (Britannia, Vol. 13, (1982), pp. 257)

If she’s right, would this mean that the diocese capital would be moved here (or wherever it was), if there still was a diocese capital by this point, after London, or Maxima, was lost? If she's right, could possibly explain the movement of Cunedda? If he was 'hired' by Valentia he could have started in the north (as one source has him fighting at Carlisle) and make his way down the western seaboard and ending in North Wales, rather than just being sent there. Britannia Prima or Demetia could have then called on his assistance once he was ther, hence ‘Cunedda's Hill’ in Dyfed?

If Dornier is right then it would have been a huge, and possibly unwieldy, province. My leaning would be to west of the Pennines down to Chester and then, possibly, the North Wales coastal region to the Lleyn Peninsular, including Anglesey, there by looking after the Scotti problem. This might explain Rheged’s supposed huge size (although there still is no certainty to where it was) but that could be just down to the size of the Brigantian territory. However, I find defining the provincial border quite difficult for this scenario. Ending at Chester and the Dee is an option I suppose, but then that would exclude the Cornovii further south. It could have, as Dornier suggests, ended where the Deceangli territory may have done when first created: possibly at the River Conwy . No one’s really sure about this enigmatic ‘kingdom’ (later to be called ‘The Middle Kingdom’) even Ptolemy missed it off his map. This, Cunedda (or whoever founded Guenedota (Gwynedd) then expanded, probably taking it from the ‘Irish’, encompassing in the Lleyn, and beyond.

Could this be why Claudian's de consulatu Stilichonis, (2, 250-5), written in January 400, putting words into the mouth of Britannia herself, says:

“When I too was about to succumb to the attack of neighbouring peoples - for the Scots had raised all Ireland against me, and the sea foamed under hostile oars - you, Stilicho, fortified me. This was to such effect that I no longer fear the weapons of the Scots, nor tremble at the Pict...”

TALIESIN

Could this also be why Taliesin writes both for a king of Rheged and a king of Powys (Cyngen, son of Brochmael)?

Mak

[Alanus]

Mak and Robert, thank you both.

The info from Dornier is helpful, and I had already noticed the little gemo from Claudian. In my studies (which are more involved with the legend of the Unspeakable Hero) I had always wondered if this tidbit about the Irish involved Cunedda; and at the same time might have accounted for Stilicho sending in a cavalry unit under a possible last Count of Britain at around 396-97. (the "Theodosius" of Vortigern Studies, the "Theithfallt" of Wilson & Blackett, and the "Thiudebalth" of my cracked brain, aka the man who was known as Uther Pendragon. I do want you to know that I have not had my photo taken while standing next to any tombstones, faked or otherwise; and that my ancestors did not carry Excalibur to Maine where they were attacked by anti-Arthurian natives. :roll: )

Basically, I'm studying legend to find possible verity. Recently, I may have raised Darrell Wolcott's ire by stating that the pedigrees were padded with legend. (I think I used the word "fudged.") He answered that a basis of truth underlied them, which does seem to be the case even if they were "enhanced" by medieval scribes. If Cunedda's grandfather was Patricius of the Red Cloak, then Cunedda may have come from a professional military family. If Tewdrig/Theodoric married Cunedda's granddaughter, as pedigree-legend claims, then he was active far before the dates given him by most scholars (with the exception of Rees who paints a floriut of 440-470). Certainly, it seems that the Votadini exodus must have occurred prior to Stilicho's death in 408 (or was it 407?).

In any event the above info has been helpful to us all, not just to myself (with my romantic theories). :oops:

[Ron Andrea]

Is it possible that the supposed migration or advance of the Votadini to Wales might have been an "advance to the rear", also known as a retreat? Perhaps the Votadini were forced out of the north and migrated (in total) to the southwest? Then, later historians "cleaned up" the retreat and rewrote history to claim a great conquest/liberation/migration?

[Arturus Uriconium]

Plausible theory, except no one can find Votadinian archaeology in Wales.

Mak

[Ron Andrea]

Or Cunedda or whomever. The point of this thread seemed to be abouyt the legends as much as the fact. At this point it seems that which legend is as hard to pin down as which fact.

[Robert Vermaat]

I expect the Votadini to have been small in number. So they would not have made any impression upon local culture.
But there is good reason to believe that the main reason that we hear about Cunedda is because another dynasty, centuries later, als came from foreign parts to lord it over Gwynedd. And it seems they chose to glorify an already known (but foreign) hero of the Welsh in order to make themselves more acceptable.

Smart, eh?
In the end, Cunedda did not force out the Irish, as he is said to have done, because it was done (again?) later on. But fact should never stand in the way of a good story.

Ron, we know that it was no retreat because we contnue to here about the Votadini much later. Remember the Gododdin poem? That was about those same Votadini organising a (fultile) expedition to undo the unification of Northumbria in the late 6th century.

[Ron Andrea]

It was just an idea. :oops:

I thought The Goddodin was in some doubt, too.

[Caturiga]

I'm not sure that anyone really, ultimately knows what Y Gododdin was about! :wink: Angles (Deira mostly) are certainly mentioned, but no actual reason is given for Gododdin's attack...hence there are many interpretations. As I understand it, it would be unwise to take it as a literal historical document - it may have been a praise poem commemorating an original event, but there is evidence of several textual alterations later in the text's life, and the most archaic version is vague enough to make a definite interpretation difficult.

[Alanus]

Ah, ha! :lol:

So, we are once again back to square one: the Goddodin poems must have celebrated some vague event in typical Celtic (and likewise Roman) wordplay, and then they were corrupted with additional booga-booga in the medieval period.

Sounds like the other threads on Roman and post-Roman Britain. hock:

Makes you want to scream, because it's mostly too late to piece it back together. The Humpty-Dumpty syndrome. :roll:

[Caturiga]

Yep, it's really frustrating. Whatever the 'truth' might be, it always seems to be just out of reach... :roll:

[Alanus]

True. But this thread-- and all the other discussions about Roman Britain-- does inform us. Each of us learns something we didn't know; and the member input comes from all over the globe. The scraps we do know about Cunedda and the Votadini appears to link to the Roman military... perhaps with the exception of David Day's Sarmatian armor scenario. :lol: