01-22-2013, 09:03 PM
Hi Michael,
Nobody knows! :-) It's one of those things. It's clear that Gildas becomes more inaccurate when writing about things further back in time, but we don't know just where the 'believability boundary' lies. Some scholars went so far to identify several 'Pictish Wars' from Gildas' writings, while others see the impossibility of that. Gildas may be just a sucker for literary simetry: British is occupied by the Romans after three expeditions, maybe Britain was abandoned also after three expeditions.
Anyway, Gildas is writing a sermon first and only then (perhaps) an historical account. meaning: read what he writes but don't take everything literary! For one he may not have known the facts (Gildas ascribes Hadrian's Wall to Severus), or he may do what many writing from Antiquity wrote: hyperbole. Read here about Gildas and his colleagues exaggerating wildly:
http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/gilddark.htm
So, after taking all of that in, Gildas may be writing nonsense in order to explain why Britain fell, or he may have been writing vague accounts of real Roman expeditions. You decide.
mile: Don't get us started about when Britain fell/was abandoned/rebelled/all of the above: 410, 440, inbetween?? :whistle:
Nobody knows! :-) It's one of those things. It's clear that Gildas becomes more inaccurate when writing about things further back in time, but we don't know just where the 'believability boundary' lies. Some scholars went so far to identify several 'Pictish Wars' from Gildas' writings, while others see the impossibility of that. Gildas may be just a sucker for literary simetry: British is occupied by the Romans after three expeditions, maybe Britain was abandoned also after three expeditions.
Anyway, Gildas is writing a sermon first and only then (perhaps) an historical account. meaning: read what he writes but don't take everything literary! For one he may not have known the facts (Gildas ascribes Hadrian's Wall to Severus), or he may do what many writing from Antiquity wrote: hyperbole. Read here about Gildas and his colleagues exaggerating wildly:
http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/gilddark.htm
So, after taking all of that in, Gildas may be writing nonsense in order to explain why Britain fell, or he may have been writing vague accounts of real Roman expeditions. You decide.
mile: Don't get us started about when Britain fell/was abandoned/rebelled/all of the above: 410, 440, inbetween?? :whistle:
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)
