The English and the Celts - no genocide?

[Robert Vermaat]

... that would mean that the population took a sharp dive after Britain became independent (Gildas saw that as a happier time, I believe), ...

Hi Vortigern,
I don't think Gildas saw the period between the late 4th cent to the AS period as a happy time at all. He only refers to one short period of peace.

I think you'll find that extracting a chronology of historical event is a daunting task that even dumbfounded the best experts on Gildas such as David Dumville. The consensus was and still is that Gildas chapter of 5th c. event can't be read as vague but chronological account, and what happened when is therefore extremely difficult to ascertain.

But what some scholars do, when they nonetheless try to take Gildas by his word to 'prove’ their own hypotheses, is conveniently forget that while Gildas is speaking of the British being batter and fleeing their homes to caves and hills and into slavery, is that no Anglo-Saxon is involved – Gildas is speaking only about the Picts and the Scots (DEB 14-20). It’s a bit rich to see a sharp population drop based on their incursions? A plague follows (DEB 22).
The first occasion where Gildas mentions the Anglo-Saxons is where he has three ships arrive to aid against these Pictish and Irish enemies. And only after Saxons these rebel do we see the whole island being devastated (In Gildas words: DEB 24-5). But that’s the very same time when Härke apparently sees the population drop being stabilised? When at the same time this should be the time when the areas that are vacated (according to Coates and Härke) are affected? That can’t be correct.

But at some point Gildas looks back on a time of peace when wars ceased, and later he chides the descendants of Ambrosius Aurelianus’ generation who grew up without having known the knowledge of war (DEB 26). It must therefore have been some time during which the population was no longer suffering all the hardships that Gildas had been lamenting about.

Personally though, I hold to the idea that Gildas was overdoing it, like his contemporaries were overdoing it when describing the suffering of post-Roman hard times, but each is entitled to do their own interpretation. However, that means not singling out a sentence that fancies us. The only evidence for hardships in Britain comes from Gildas, and any conclusions about a drop in population *based on that* cannot stand.

My point? Gildas’ account of the 5th c. is being misused. Use it? Use all of it.