+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc) (/showthread.php?tid=6780)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 06-15-2009
Quote:Faction .... plesase :roll:
That implies that there's some element of fact involved. Some of the stuff I've read over the years on the subject doesn't fall into that category. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 06-15-2009
Quote:ps. The old farts (Victorians) have been overly discredited, but when you read 19th century references such as "Illtyd appears to be a German" or Ashe saying, "A curious thing is said about Daniel [son of Riothamus], that he was a King of the Alamanni," then perhaps our cold-hard 21st century evaluations might need "down-dating."
It was thought by Léon Fleuriot to be a corruption of "king of the Albani", ie the insular Britons.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 06-15-2009
Hi Alan,
Quote: By this means of cross-referencing, we can discover plausible historicity. When you add it all up, you begin to form a picture (depending upon your perception, and mine is rather romantic). These nuptials indicate alliences betrween the southern dynasties; and Theodoric's family marries into Andrew's twice, his sister to John (Riothamus?) and his grand-niece to John's grandson. I don't think this part of the genealogies is fictional. And I have no reason to believe that "Ringulida" could have been dreamed up by medieval scribes who had no clue that she was actually Germanic, that her mother's name was Germanilla, and that her father was the probable Fraomarius (as in Fraomarius Rusticus) the King of the Alamanni mentioned by Ammianus as seated by Valentinian and arriving in Britain in 372. Little links, viewed carefully, can shed bright light.
I agree with Agraes. The British genealogies are very difficult to use, but at least we know that some go back on the 8th or 9th century - to use them as primary evidence for historical theories before the 6th century cannot be recommended.
The Breton genealogies are far worse. When the material cannot be corroborated from other sources (such as gregory of Tours or similar material) they suffer from the fact that no primary sources such as charters and genealogies survived the Viking onslaught. All material dates from the 11th century or thereabouts, or later. Much of what individual genealogies contain seems to be taken (in a fanciful, often rearranged way) from earlier British genealogies. So is the otherwise unattested supposedly fifth-century St.Vortigern (St. Gurthiern) from Britanny ‘empowered’ with a paternal lineage stolen from the real Vortigern, and a maternal lineage stolen from St. Kentigern. And all contrived not earlier than the later 11th century.
To draw on this material for details about 4th and 5th century persons (without these persons and connections found in earlier sources) is useless.
Yes Alan, I know your perception is somewhat 'romantic'
But why 'that part of the genealogies' should not be fictional I just can't see. Quote:When we discover that Aldrian/Andrew ap Saloman (father of John and Illtyd) married a certain "Ringulida," it seems unimportant at first. Then we discover that her real name was "Rhineguilda" and she was the daughter of Rusticus (Praefect of Gaul). Her brother was Saint Germanus; and this shows laterally in Germanus' benificence toward Illtyd and the founding of Llanwit Major. In turn, Illtyd was recorded in Welsh tradition as one of "Arthur's" greatest knights. Now this may be legendary, but it places correctly when we move to the "Lifer St. Illtutus," where we hear much the same thing. The tale has all the characteristics of the later "Grail Knight," and it also places Illtyd as a proto-Lancelot... even the fact/legend that he came from France.
Well… Erm… What can I say?
Aldrian (Aldroenus) is no Andrew (which comes from Andreas). 'John Riatam' is not Riothamus, it's a very late alteration, of possibly three characters. Riothamus as far as we know had no surname like Iohannis.
We have no evidence of Riothamus was the son of Aldroenus, who is connected to Brittany. Nor is there any connection between him and Illtud, or of Illtud to Aldroenus, or any of them to 'Ringulida'.
This woman, with a very Germanic name, is not connected to Saint Germanus, of whom we know but little. Her mother’s name, Germanilla, is actually not Germanic but Latin. That her brother is supposed to be St. Germanus (who no-one thinks of a being Germanic, which he probably wasn’t as far as we can tell) becomes telling: evidently we have medieval scribes lumping together a load of names of people who sound or seem Germanic, but in fact are not (apart from this ‘Rinegild’or whatever the original form of her name was.
Fraomar, who was indeed a king of the Alamanni, is never known to have carried the name 'Rusticus'. Nor was he known to have been the praefect of Gaul at any time. So a daughter of a 'Rusticus, praefect of Gaul' cannot be connected to Fraomar.
Illtud and Riothamus were not brothers. How could they? Riothamus was active in the 460s, Illtud died in 537. If their uncle was St. Germanus (who died at about 60 years c. 437). Their supposed ‘father’ Aldroen seems to be active in the time of Magnus Maximus, c. 380.
Which shows the impossibility of the construction: Aldroen (floruit 380s) cannot have a brother-in-law whose floruit was c. 410, and sons whose floruit are in the 460s and the 520s or thereabouts.
All a mirage I’m afraid.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 06-15-2009
hi Matt,
Quote:I know Stuart Laycock has done a lot of work to try and substantiate this theory and it's all well written stuff but I'm not sold on his idea of trying to equate Britannia in the 5th century with the Balkans in the 20th.Well, personally I don't think that Stuart is wrong with that Balkans image (I like the model of the Soviet Union and their Asian republics better), but he did not compare it close enough: Yugoslavia did settle scores of their fathers and grandfathers, not of grudges and sentiments from pre-Turkish Illyria. Which is what he proposes happened in Britain, that they fell back on 350-year old models which supposedly were held 'in limbo' during the Roman period. And that I still cannot seee any evidence for. But I'm awaiting his latest book. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 06-16-2009
Robert,
Like I say, I'm a romanticist and none of it's fact but theory. In fact we all work from theory to a certain extent, even when it's 1%.
Like you, I have a hard time believing that the Britains ressurected 350-year-old British traditions-- BANGO, right after the Romans left. The theory, far older than Laycock's, goes back to the Victorians or maybe even Carte (the one book you can never find). The evolving structure of societies and anthropology would negate this theory. This is the very same reason that the idea of the "Ribchester" "Sarmatians" could extend their culture, unchanged, for three centuries is also faulty.
hock: To Ron,
From the cultural evolution mentioned above, I have a hard time believing that there were any chariots rumbling through 5th-century Britain. Gildas was using word-play, a metaphor, just like his reference to the bear's den. In the time of Caesar, yes. In the time of Justinian, no. If we need to picture cultural evolution, all we have to do is look at the United States. In 1700, everything was Scottish-Irish. In 2000, it's pizza and wanton soup. And the time frame is the same as Britain-- 300 years.
It seems just about everybody has a leaning toward some favorite scenario (all except Robert, who is the quinticential pragmatist), yet it's a healthy thing. It's democratic and shows we're actually thinking (even if the thought-train has faults). 8)
But, seriously, it appears that a good deal of Celticisms were knocked down by the Roman occupation. The same thing happened in Gaul.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 06-16-2009
It depends where.
In the west we have evidence of continuated use of some hillforts and small defend homesteads from the late iron age onwards, see chapters about Wales and the South-west in Dark's Britain and the End of the Roman Empire. I was talking about the Breton laws, eventually dated from the 5th century, and those are celtic laws, with very few roman traditions despite their name Excerpta de Libris Romanorum.
Of course the irish sea regions are different eventually because of irish settlers, trade and exchanges between those British and one of the last "celtic" land, but in the end Breton, Cornish or Welsh are... Brittonic languages, not gaelic.
I think we can have a very different view from Britain looking at different regions...
I support Laycock's views on post-roman Britain. It's not for him a question of culture - be it either celtic british, roman or germanic - but a question of regional identities which didn't "re-emerged" but still existed under roman rule.
For the chariot thing, Im quite suspicious. Snyder mentions in An Age of Tyrants some finds that belonged to a chariot in Dinas Emrys, maybe someone got the excavation report to bring some light on this?
A few of Breton genealogies can be guessed to be taken from older sources. That was at least stated by Léon Fleuriot about a name such as "Outham Senis", beeing a very old version of Eudaf Hen. Hagiographic sources are also complicated to use, but some can be used with care, essentially the Vita Samsoni of Life of St Samson, of 7th or 8th century date and the Vita Pauli Aureliani of 9th century date but with some interesting material. A lot of progress have been done in the study of those sources in the last decades by people such as André-Yves Bourgès or Bernard Merdrignac.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 06-16-2009
Quote:I think we can have a very different view from Britain looking at different regions...
I support Laycock's views on post-roman Britain. It's not for him a question of culture - be it either celtic british, roman or germanic - but a question of regional identities which didn't "re-emerged" but still existed under roman rule.
For the chariot thing, Im quite suspicious. Snyder mentions in An Age of Tyrants some finds that belonged to a chariot in Dinas Emrys, maybe someone got the excavation report to bring some light on this?
A few of Breton genealogies can be guessed to be taken from older sources. That was at least stated by Léon Fleuriot about a name such as "Outham Senis", beeing a very old version of Eudaf Hen. Hagiographic sources are also complicated to use, but some can be used with care, essentially the Vita Samsoni of Life of St Samson, of 7th or 8th century date and the Vita Pauli Aureliani of 9th century date but with some interesting material. A lot of progress have been done in the study of those sources in the last decades by people such as André-Yves Bourgès or Bernard Merdrignac.
Agreed. We would expect the British language to continue and evolve under Roman rule, simply because the Britons had the greater population and language is retained by dominent numbers.
I, too, noticed Snyder's reference to a chariot found in Dinas Emrys. But was it really a chariot? Or was it a cart or carriage? Or was it a ceremonial item? Doubtful that the Britons were still fighting chariot-stlye in the 4th or 5th century.
Good to know that there is a realistic sub-base to the Breton genealogies. Thanks for that. But what are we to think of such corrupted wording as "John Lex"? The pedigrees are puzzling. If they were reworked in the medieval period, as Vortigern Studies notes (with good reason), then what accounts for the nuptial links that point to the collusion of dynasties? This is not a perceived "Germanic" or other ethnic link, but appears as a wedding of families into a larger whole. Why would the medieval scribes create these bondings? :?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Conal - 06-16-2009
Am I barking up a wrong tree here but don't the names give an indication of a continued use of an old hierarchy? Vortigern/Riothamus/Vortiporix .... very reminiscent of Vorcingetorix
Not very Romano titles.Vortiporix is considered possibly Irish in form and belonging to a British residing Irish dynasty allowed to stay as a client kingdom during Roman (occupation?)times.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 06-16-2009
Would that indicate that Vortiporix might have resided/controlled part of Demetia? It was quite Irish, I think. :?
If so, then he came from an area that also spawned Roman nomens like Agricola. Who says Britain wasn't multicultural :?:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 06-16-2009
Some of the cultural residue--chariots--may have been in the form of ideas as much as hardware. That Gildas used it when he was looking for powerful metaphors indicates he at least thought his readers would understand the image he reported. I bow to the knowlege of others on archeological evidence.
Geneologies have always been tricky, especially since even legitimate ones can get telescoped (leaving out generations) or repetitive (due to errors and/or common names). But, for some people at some times, geneologies have been important repositories of community and continuity.
When we shift the refuse piles of history, some of what we recover is based on the pattern and fineness of our grid as much as what's in the pile. To capture everything important we risk capturing a lot of irrelevant trash.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 06-16-2009
Hi Alan,
Quote:It seems just about everybody has a leaning toward some favorite scenario (all except Robert, who is the quinticential pragmatist):mrgreen:
Well, it's the historian in me. I know. However, I DO have a favorite scenario, you can read about it on the Vortigern Studies website. :wink:
Quote: Good to know that there is a realistic sub-base to the Breton genealogies. Thanks for that.WHOA! That's not what Agraes said. he said:
Quote:A few of Breton genealogies can be guessed to be taken from older sources. That was at least stated by Léon FleuriotOnly a small part of the Breton genealogiocal materaial MAY contain material from older sources, instead of being collected and produced later on. And indeed, the only way to find those scraps of original info is to look at names which are older or in archaic form. For instance, for Vortigern that would mean that the form Guorthigirn is likely to be 9th century, whilst when you come across the (near-)contemporary Uertigern you can break out the champagne.
Quote:But what are we to think of such corrupted wording as "John Lex"? The pedigrees are puzzling. If they were reworked in the medieval period, as Vortigern Studies notes (with good reason), then what accounts for the nuptial links that point to the collusion of dynasties? This is not a perceived "Germanic" or other ethnic link, but appears as a wedding of families into a larger whole. Why would the medieval scribes create these bondings? :?The usual reason is to create an ideqa of 'anciennity'. Genealogies were for the most acreated to prop up legal claims. Old names under charters would serve to enhance the status of the foundation of your convent, bishopric or the like. The older the founder, the higher the esteeem for your establishment.
I, too, was bafffled when I came across this for the first time. Surely people would notice the fabrication and protest! But apparently no one seems to have minded - history was there to be 'formed', apparently. :roll:
Mind you, the names of 6th-c. Welsh kings appears on later frauds, but never that of a certain Arthur.... Nor does he crop up in any genealogy before the 11th century!
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 06-16-2009
Quote:Am I barking up a wrong tree here but don't the names give an indication of a continued use of an old hierarchy? Vortigern/Riothamus/Vortiporix .... very reminiscent of VorcingetorixIndeed, which is why their names gave rise to 19th c. ideas about 'Celtic' parties versus 'Imperial' parties, based on names alone. Vortigern the Celt against Ambrosius the Defender of Rome. Without much evidence, of course.
Vortiporix is considered possibly Irish in form and belonging to a British residing Irish dynasty allowed to stay as a client kingdom during Roman (occupation?)times.
However, there must be something in those names. I cannot believe that late 4th-c. Roman parents (if you believe Vortigern's ancenstry) should have named their son with a Brythonis name. That's how I came up with my pet theory about a Romano-Briton possibly named Vitalinus, who took the Brythonic name Vortigern upon accession. But with the idea that this apparently appealed to people he want to woo - Britons.
Yes, there seems to have been an increase in old names like Caradoc (Caratacus) or Teithfallt (Cassivellaunus). But Latin names continue to be in use well into the 5th century and after (like Condidan of Glevum, defeated at Dyrham in 572).
NB: these names are NOT TITLES. We see them being given to very ordinary people. They have meanings of course, but that does not make them titles. names like Stralin or Augustus were also artificial, taken 'upon accession', but only some later became titles.
Votecorix is the Irish form. Vortiporix is not the correct form: Gildas mentions Uortipore, while Vortipors’ own gravestonehas been found in Castell Dwyran, Carmarthenshire, bearing the inscription Memoria Voteporigis protectoris (‘in memory of Vortiporix’) in Latin script, and Votecorigas (‘of Votecorix’) in Ogham.
Although we know of heavy Irish settlement in Dyfed, the dynasty need not be Irish - Vortipor's name in early Welsh becomes Gwrthefyr, which is exactly the same as the early Welsh form of Vortimer, son of Vortigern. :mrgreen: Both are British.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 06-19-2009
I have have split the 'stirrup discussion' from this topic because it was going wildly off-topic and very vague. It now resides in the Off-topic section. It can be continued there.
I will treat messages that are continuing in that fashion in this thread as being posted by a troll, and remove them accordingly. Those of us who are interested in a serious thread are called upon not to react to such messages anymore.
I'm not against any discussion that includes the development of stirrups in post-Roman British cavalry, to the contrary. But frankly, that last part was too vague to even form a point of view from.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 06-19-2009
Thank you.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 06-19-2009
![[Image: aberlemno4detailvq9.jpg]](http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/2134/aberlemno4detailvq9.jpg)
The famous Aberlemno stone, 8th century, supposed to depict the battle of Dunnichen between Picts and Northumbrians in 685.
A bit far from 5-6th century Briton cavalry? Well, it's probably still the best picture depicting how such cavalry would have fought. We got two type of horsemen here. Unarmored pictish horsemen fighting with sword, lenticular shield and spear, and heavy northumbrian horsemen with spears, swords, shields, ridge helmets akin to the Coppergate helmet, and probably some mail armor aswell. None of the horsemen seems to charge with a couched lance, either they use an overhand grip or are throwing javelins.
Similarity between Northumbrians and Britons may be even further reinforced by the fact that Bernicia was the "most brittonic" of all anglo-saxon kingdoms, and this cavalry tradition may be derived from Briton heritage.
There is also another theory that the stone actually shows a battle between Picts and Briton from Strathclyde...