Saint Patrick & Names along the Antonine wall

[MonsGraupius]

it would be natural to refer to Dumbarton Rock when explaining where Nemthur was.

But the scholiast is saying that Nemthur is Dumbarton Rock, not that it's somewhere near there.

If you're writing from outside Scotland the two are the same.

we are told there were 7 ON THE WALL and NEMETON is the 7th.

The Historia Brittonum (your source for this, I think) says there were seven - but it also contains fantasy stories about dragons and men turning into foxes. We know very well that there were more than seven forts on the wall.

And it says that the story of dragons are stories. In other words it gives the raw evidence with a warning. That is far better than those who think they know the truth and so distort the story to what they think it should be. As such Nennius is a far more credible source than those that amend details to make them fit in with what the author thought they ought to be.

the Clota... Alt Chluaidh... earliest post Roman form Dunberton

What's the earliest date we have for the name 'Dunberton'?

I think it's a 12th century manuscript.

Getting three good name matches, IN THE RIGHT PLACE, backed by historic evidence

I still don't think they are good name matches, and they're only in the right places because you've put them there!

I still don't see any historical evidence (other than the garbled names themselves) that would place any of this prior to the medieval period.

Balmuildy was chosen using an impartial method to determine the biggest forts with evidence of late occupation. Dumbarton is the next place along the Clyde with a possible Roman fort.

Other authors have said that SUBDOBIADON matches Dunbarton and that MedionNemeton is a match for Nemthur. The only really new nit of information is to include the note from Nennius saying there were seven forts. I've no doubt if someone had put that all together 100 years ago none of this silly nonsense about Patrick would have started and it would just be accepted he was born in Old Kilpatrick.

you can't support your assertion that there was only one source.

It's not really an assertion - there is only one source, that we know of.

It's possible that the even later sources (all two of them) that mention Strathclyde are drawing on some mysteriously vanished additional source - but that would be speculation etc etc.

It's also speculation that there were no other sources.

you're the one arguing that he can't be from Strathclyde because of his language.

I'm arguing that it seems very unlikely he was from Strathclyde.

LOL

Latin was still in use within the old Roman province, and I don't see any reason why Patrick should not have been from there. It certainly seems the most logical assumption, and doesn't involve having to invent communities of fugitives north of the wall and so on.

We're told he wasn't.

St.Alban's martyrdom is dated around 396AD... How long does blood sit around?... forced to flee the empire AFTER IT BECAME CHRISTIAN.

it's also feasible that the early community in Strathclyde was created by the original persecutions around 305AD

... another good reason a priest and his wife might flee.

Back to this again! St Alban was probably invented in the late 4th century,

And your evidence for that assertion is what? You seem to be very certain that your own speculation based on no evidence is right, and very certain that historical accounts where you have no evidence they are wrong ... must be wrong.

It seems to me you just make it up as you go along and ignore the historical evidence.

so we dont have to worry about his miraculous blood. Pelagius is usually dated to around the same time as Patrick, so the Pelagian heresy would not have caused his family to go anywhere.

The 'early community in Strathclyde' is your own invention, so any reasons you invent for them to be there are as good as any others.

We have the Roman coin evidence that proves a community with Roman links right through the time of the Roman empire. The evidence proves a community with Roman links existed.

Christians were not persecuted to any degree in Britain in AD303-5, so none of them would flee, and certainly not to pagan Strathclyde! They did not even flee the empire in places where persecution did happen.

Priests continued to marry and have kids into the middle ages. We know Patricks father and grandfather were clergymen; deciding that this is why they were in Strathclyde is very circular reasoning.

And your evidence for this is what? Again it's your own speculation based on no evidence whatsoever and CONTRARY to the historical evidence.