01-20-2009, 11:05 AM
Hi Mak,
First of all, although I find the theory very interesting, I’m not convinced that Laycock has offered sufficient proof that behind the distribution of the brooches and buckles indeed lies a recognisable tribal group. Art styles being art styles, they could in my opinion also represent local markets or other explanations. One I could offer if we’d go for a military background of these items, would be the service of Votadinian warriors in the Roman army of North Britain – some would stay and some would go back home. It’s a similar pattern that we can see in earlier items of such a nature, Roman as well as Germanic, where we see the owners take them back into Germany.
As to the links between Coel and Cunedag, we should be careful to discern the material: what we have was written down much later, and it could easily have been changed after the fact to fit the political needs of later times, a totally common thing.
Maybe the ‘marriage’ of Cunedag and his son the to the wall (Gwawl) and the Wall road (Stratwawl) reflect military commands which they held in the regular army, but which later were goofed up by copyists who had no clue what they entailed. Similarly, I have a battle of one of Vortigern’s sons that later ended up as the name of his son!
I’d rather explain it this way than look at the civitates, or tribes as Laycock describes them, being armed and in military conflict with each other as early as the middle of the 4th century! I need not explain what that would tell us about Roman control over the North of Britain, or rather the total lack of it! I’m not supportive of the explanation that has the Romans control the Wall but turn a wilfully blind eye towards the feuding civitates at their back.
About those Sarmatians, I doubt that they were a unit much differing in number and look from the other Roman cavalry units. They were in Ribchester at the turn of the 5th c., or so we may assume. The rest is speculation. However, if Carlisle became the main settlement of Rheged, I could think of the commanders there (about to become local royalty) looking at that group of warriors as something to have close by their side.
The dragon was not a Brigantian symbol. I mean, it’s so wide-spread that it would take special pleading to declare in specifically Brigantian. The draco was a common Roman military object for centuries, I just don’t see why we should declare it Brigantian just because of a distribution of brooches and buckles.
First of all, although I find the theory very interesting, I’m not convinced that Laycock has offered sufficient proof that behind the distribution of the brooches and buckles indeed lies a recognisable tribal group. Art styles being art styles, they could in my opinion also represent local markets or other explanations. One I could offer if we’d go for a military background of these items, would be the service of Votadinian warriors in the Roman army of North Britain – some would stay and some would go back home. It’s a similar pattern that we can see in earlier items of such a nature, Roman as well as Germanic, where we see the owners take them back into Germany.
As to the links between Coel and Cunedag, we should be careful to discern the material: what we have was written down much later, and it could easily have been changed after the fact to fit the political needs of later times, a totally common thing.
Maybe the ‘marriage’ of Cunedag and his son the to the wall (Gwawl) and the Wall road (Stratwawl) reflect military commands which they held in the regular army, but which later were goofed up by copyists who had no clue what they entailed. Similarly, I have a battle of one of Vortigern’s sons that later ended up as the name of his son!
I’d rather explain it this way than look at the civitates, or tribes as Laycock describes them, being armed and in military conflict with each other as early as the middle of the 4th century! I need not explain what that would tell us about Roman control over the North of Britain, or rather the total lack of it! I’m not supportive of the explanation that has the Romans control the Wall but turn a wilfully blind eye towards the feuding civitates at their back.
About those Sarmatians, I doubt that they were a unit much differing in number and look from the other Roman cavalry units. They were in Ribchester at the turn of the 5th c., or so we may assume. The rest is speculation. However, if Carlisle became the main settlement of Rheged, I could think of the commanders there (about to become local royalty) looking at that group of warriors as something to have close by their side.
The dragon was not a Brigantian symbol. I mean, it’s so wide-spread that it would take special pleading to declare in specifically Brigantian. The draco was a common Roman military object for centuries, I just don’t see why we should declare it Brigantian just because of a distribution of brooches and buckles.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
