02-06-2007, 11:42 AM
Yes, isn't that the problem with most ancient sources? Brings to mind the unreliability of our friend Gildas. It isn't called the Dark Ages for nothing.
To be fair, they didn't know they were writing records people would be pouring ovewr for hints of what was going on fourteen centuries later. Gildas was penning a Jeremiad on the sins and corruption of his fellow Britons, having no idea he would be quoted as supporting evidence for the existence of someone he never mentions (Arthur).
What about the "forced out of Britain" comment by the Fulda monastic? While it seems more likely that Saxons merely expanded into northern Francia concurrent with their migration/conquest of Britain, that source implies a two-step process. Which further suggests a large and (at least temporarily) robust Briton population.
To be fair, they didn't know they were writing records people would be pouring ovewr for hints of what was going on fourteen centuries later. Gildas was penning a Jeremiad on the sins and corruption of his fellow Britons, having no idea he would be quoted as supporting evidence for the existence of someone he never mentions (Arthur).
What about the "forced out of Britain" comment by the Fulda monastic? While it seems more likely that Saxons merely expanded into northern Francia concurrent with their migration/conquest of Britain, that source implies a two-step process. Which further suggests a large and (at least temporarily) robust Briton population.
"Fugit irreparabile tempus" (Irrecoverable time glides away) Virgil
Ron Andrea
Ron Andrea
