Dyfed ca 480 AD (Celtic Myth/Camelot/Infinite Worlds)

[Tuk the Weekah]

Originally Posted by Rigil_Kent

Question: In the real world, the Roman legions withdrew from England in 410. As that's 70 years earlier, how will that affect this? Did the legions stay longer in this world?

Always hated this. In every other part of the Empire, by 410 (really, since Diocletian' reforms, IIRC) the Legions were limitani--essentially part-time soldiers who had farms & trades on the side. For the most part, they were inherited positions, too. In all other similar circumstances, Rome simply stopped paying them and left them in situ. The cost of extracting them could be far better spent on hiring a greater number of barbarian mercenaries who would, incidentally, be more effective on the battlefield.

A "Roman Legionnaire" in the Britains in 406 was as much a local as the swine-herder next field over. He never went anywhere. The 'Romano-British Army' that crossed over under Constantine III was probably primarily the Saxons, Franks, and other Germanic federates with tribal lands in the south; and the scope of the mission is immediately obvious when you observe that their first military objective was seizing the imperial mint at Arles (relocated from Trier earlier that year).

[Tuk the Weekah]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Of course, there is considerable doubt about the Christian status of a hypothetical Arthur. Pre-Galfridian sources appear to suggest a hostility between Arthur and the Celtic church. Whenever the lives of Celtic saints mention the character, he appears as a tyrant, persecutor of saints, enemy of the church, enemy of god, and, first and foremost, demander of tribute or taxes from monasteries or churches. Contrast with the volume of sources for several other semi-mythological 'Celtic' kings of the 4th and 5th century describing them as the patrons of churches and monasteries, fathers and promoters of saints and founders or defenders of holy places.

That is true; however, the conflict between 'holy man' and potentate in early medieval hagiography is a cut-and-paste matter. We know that Magnus Maximus was a decidedly orthodox Christian, but you wouldn't know that from Sulpicius Severus’ Life of Saint Martin, which traces a straight line from Martin's clashes with Julian the Apostate, to Maximus, to Satan. The theme of early medieval hagiography is that devotion to the State is done at the peril of the soul, and that the emperors of this world are the legates of the Emperor of the World, i.e.: the Devil, in contrast to the saints, who are the emissaries of God.

Another interesting point is that the, for want of a better term, anti-Arthur literary tradition is confined to a very small geographical area within Wales; if we can judge by later Welsh kingdoms like Powys claiming Vortigern as an ancestor, central Wales was a core element of Vortigern's power base (Arthur has a pretty good rep in south-west Wales, however). If Arthur is, in any way, associated with Ambrosias Aurelius, and if the current reading of the account of the Battle of Guoloph is accurate, then he was of the party that usurped power by dint of arms from their guy. And, actually, in that context, the stories have a certain internal consistency--Arthur as the young, brash commander sent to pacify the area, being taught important lessons in realpolitik by the abbots & holy men of the region.

As for Gildas, aside from an oblique reference to Ambrosias Aurelius, he staunchly refuses to name anyone who might be considered a 'good' prince; although his threats to the named princes suggest that there were, in fact, 'good Christian princes' with the political power to take action against them.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Tuk the Weekah

Always hated this. In every other part of the Empire, by 410 (really, since Diocletian' reforms, IIRC) the Legions were limitani--essentially part-time soldiers who had farms & trades on the side. For the most part, they were inherited positions, too.

To a degree, true in the Britains as in the rest of the Empire; but both the ease with which the duty assignments of various units were changed by Comes Theodosius, Magnus Maximus and even Stilicho, and the apparent complete disappearance of the legions as any kind of factor in the politics of Brittania after 410 AD/CE, suggest that even the limitanei were not completely tied to individual pieces of land.

Originally Posted by Tuk the Weekah

In all other similar circumstances, Rome simply stopped paying them and left them in situ. The cost of extracting them could be far better spent on hiring a greater number of barbarian mercenaries who would, incidentally, be more effective on the battlefield.

In 406 AD/CE, however, it wasn't Rome who needed the services of soldiers, it was a rebel whose military rank we don't know, but which appears not to have been among the three most senior in the provinces of Britain. He could inspire, cajole or threathen soldiers in the provinces he effectively commanded, but he might not have had ready cash available to hire mercenaries from abroad.

Originally Posted by Tuk the Weekah

A "Roman Legionnaire" in the Britains in 406 was as much a local as the swine-herder next field over. He never went anywhere.

That's not quite a fair characterisation. There are indications that the period 350-411 AD/CE actually saw quite a lot of campaigning by units of the Roman army stationed in the provinces of Britain and that many units were engaged quite far from their home bases. Not only in Pictland, but in various places in Gaul, in Hispania, Italica and even Pannonia.

Originally Posted by Tuk the Weekah

The 'Romano-British Army' that crossed over under Constantine III was probably primarily the Saxons, Franks, and other Germanic federates with tribal lands in the south; and the scope of the mission is immediately obvious when you observe that their first military objective was seizing the imperial mint at Arles (relocated from Trier earlier that year).

I can't imagine that the comitatenses stationed in the provinces of Britain were left behind. And there is reason to believe that some of the limitanei stationed on the Wall had been made into pseudocomitatensis in the recent past and I imagine Flavius Claudius Constantinus made quite streneous efforts to bring every fighting man he could lay his hands on.

I think that most of the defenders of the Saxon Shore fortresses, as well as the entire remains of the field army of the Comes Brittaniarum and any formations that could be attached to it, were shipped over to Gaul. How many of the units that were assigned to the Wall went with them depends on the relationship between Coel Hen and Flavius Claudius Constantinus.

Personally, I think Coel Hen agreed to whatever Constantinus asked, but took care not to send anyone he couldn't lose and made sure that if a Roman army came back to Britain to put down a rebellion, he was not too closely associated with it. He probably even sent fulsome promises of support to whichever faction(s) he considered most likely to emerge victorious. Maybe Stilicho, maybe Alaric, maybe Maximus of Hispania. Maybe all of them and a few letters to the child-emperor Honorius, for good measure.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Icelander

On the other hand, we have more or less zero sources on the religion or social makeup of pre-Celtic cultures in fhe British isles. From a scientific standpoint, that does not allow us to fill in the blanks with completely unsupported imagination. From a game design / historical fiction standpoint, we absolutely can. Must, really.

Oh yes ... and even for the period in question, there are so few sources on Britain from the fifth or sixth century that any suggestion of what happens owes more to imagination than the evidence. Guy Halsell tends to be very serious and critical ("those saints' lives were written down more than a thousand years later by people who knew all the stories about Arthur ... that style of grave was not native to Saxony but seems to appear over a wide area in the confusion of the fifth century ... those geneticists are making some very doubtful assumptions"), but even he can't resist sketching out how it might have been.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Oh yes ... and even for the period in question, there are so few sources on Britain from the fifth or sixth century that any suggestion of what happens owes more to imagination than the evidence. Guy Halsell tends to be very serious and critical ("those saints' lives were written down more than a thousand years later by people who knew all the stories about Arthur ... that style of grave was not native to Saxony but seems to appear over a wide area in the confusion of the fifth century ... those geneticists are making some very doubtful assumptions"), but even he can't resist sketching out how it might have been.

Since my adventure, should it be run, is set on a parallel world, I will be including a lot of things because I find them cool, not because there is any historical evidence for them.

I do want to avoid, however, having things contradict historical evidence, unless I can reconcile that contradiction in my mind. So, for example, while I might use Latin, Brythonic, Goidelic or even Germanic names, I want to avoid using names from languages that didn't exist yet at the time. So, no Lancelot.

The fosterling of Cynyr Ceinfarfog and the son of Uthyr Penndraig, yes. His older step-brother, who might indeed have been Christened Caius, but might just as well be named Cei (Welsh) or Kay (Cornish), commanding a small warband in a fort for his father. And Bedwyr, if I can find a plausible way to include a warrior from Armorica so early.*

*Well, as it happens, King Budick of Kernev, Armorica, is an exile at the court of Acricola Lawhir of Dyfed from 478 AD onwards. Certainly he might have household warriors and the sons of those warriors with him in his exile.

[jason taylor]

To be honest the Frenchified Camelot is not my favorite version. It simply strains my Willing Suspension of Disbelief to much. Having King Arthur's entourage be idealized Plantangenets is almost worse then Celts being peaceful mother-goddess worshipping matriarchal pacifists. And I have read Ivanhoe to often to really want Britain's hero to be a reminder of The Norman Yoke. The thought of Arthur being a Roman "Lawrencius of Britainia" for the Celts has it's charms though, especially when it carries an air of mystery about it.

On the other hand the Grail, and the mysterious fountains, and the trackless woods and all the rest of the stuff have their charms too.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

To be honest the Frenchified Camelot is not my favorite version. It simply strains my Willing Suspension of Disbelief to much. Having King Arthur's entourage be idealized Plantangenets is almost worse then Celts being peaceful mother-goddess worshipping matriarchal pacifists.

Frenchified is ahistorical, but the warrior band following a king is a very Late Antique/Early Medieval thing. Whether it's called a Comitatensis or Teulu, any kind of Arthur would have a warrior band of brothers around him.

And as for knights, aside from the obvious connection with heavy Roman cavalry and the 3rd century Sarmatians in Britain, there are also Alans that settled in Armorica during the 4th-5th century and may well have been a source of recruits for 4th century Roman cavalry in the provinces of Britain and Gaul. Alans also had Indo-Iranian tales that contain a lot of similarities to early Arthuriana.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

And I have read Ivanhoe to often to really want Britain's hero to be a reminder of The Norman Yoke. The thought of Arthur being a Roman "Lawrencius of Britainia" for the Celts has it's charms though, especially when it carries an air of mystery about it.

If it's a matter of a romantic origin for a national hero, I'm pretty fond of the idea that Carausius, the first ruler of unified Britain, might have left descendants. One interpretation of Carausius is that he was of the Menapian tribe in Ireland, not Gaul. This would identify him with Cú Roí mac Daire. At any rate, he was a Romano-Celtic pirate who rose to become king of the isle of Britain, ruling through seapower. And he left legends in Wales.

It's pretty easy to come up with a family tree for Arthur which fits the sources and has him descend from Romans, northern Celtic tribes of what is now lowland Scotland and the north of England, southern Brythons and Cymry in the west. Add a Gael pirate who rose to Roman Emperor in his ancestry and he becomes a true national hero for all of Great Britain.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

On the other hand the Grail, and the mysterious fountains, and the trackless woods and all the rest of the stuff have their charms too.

The quest for a Cauldron is a very Celtic trope. So are magical fountains and woods. Not to mention the very real woods in Britannia and Hibernia.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Frenchified is ahistorical, but the warrior band following a king is a very Late Antique/Early Medieval thing. Whether it's called a Comitatensis or Teulu, any kind of Arthur would have a warrior band of brothers around him.

And as for knights, aside from the obvious connection with heavy Roman cavalry and the 3rd century Sarmatians in Britain, there are also Alans that settled in Armorica during the 4th-5th century and may well have been a source of recruits for 4th century Roman cavalry in the provinces of Britain and Gaul. Alans also had Indo-Iranian tales that contain a lot of similarities to early Arthuriana.


If it's a matter of a romantic origin for a national hero, I'm pretty fond of the idea that Carausius, the first ruler of unified Britain, might have left descendants. One interpretation of Carausius is that he was of the Menapian tribe in Ireland, not Gaul. This would identify him with Cú Roí mac Daire. At any rate, he was a Romano-Celtic pirate who rose to become king of the isle of Britain, ruling through seapower. And he left legends in Wales.

It's pretty easy to come up with a family tree for Arthur which fits the sources and has him descend from Romans, northern Celtic tribes of what is now lowland Scotland and the north of England, southern Brythons and Cymry in the west. Add a Gael pirate who rose to Roman Emperor in his ancestry and he becomes a true national hero for all of Great Britain.


The quest for a Cauldron is a very Celtic trope. So are magical fountains and woods. Not to mention the very real woods in Britannia and Hibernia.

Oh a warrior band following a king is a fairly well known theme in human society. Knights in armor and all the associated tropes, belong to a different culture then existed in the pre-Saxon Britain.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Oh a warrior band following a king is a fairly well known theme in human society. Knights in armor and all the associated tropes, belong to a different culture then existed in the pre-Saxon Britain.

MacKennit's Lady of the Lake was cool, like all her songs though:"Four grey walls and four grey towers..."

[Tuk the Weekah]

Originally Posted by Icelander

To a degree, true in the Britains as in the rest of the Empire; but both the ease with which the duty assignments of various units were changed by Comes Theodosius, Magnus Maximus and even Stilicho, and the apparent complete disappearance of the legions as any kind of factor in the politics of Brittania after 410 AD/CE, suggest that even the limitanei were not completely tied to individual pieces of land.

If the pseudo-limitani of the vigesima Valeria victrix, etc. of the third century, who needed the establishment of two comitatenses to hold the Britains, had been retrofitted & retrained into a competent projective force (as opposed to a defensive force), they would be an unique element in the later Roman world. A more compelling argument is that if this was the case, they would have left an archaeological footprint. Yet we see military granaries being converted into high-status living spaces (Birdoswald, ca. 348-353, from the coin evidence); South Shields shows similar late- and post-Roman activity (extended series of construction work with a TPQ of 402). A Valentinianic solidus buried in a sequence of mortared floors in Carlisle, and evidence of other, fairly ambitious reconstruction dating to the 5th century, suggests that a significant amount of manpower available, albeit nowhere as skilled at engineering as 2nd & 3rd C legionnaires.

Broadly, the archaeological evidence on the Wall shows a similar character to that of other stationary forces in the Western provinces at the time; a gradual decrease in utility, and a likewise gradual increase in self-sustainability, of the limitani that starts in the mid-4th C and progresses onwards, with no apparent breaks in continuity, solidly into the post-Roman era.

Originally Posted by Icelander

In 406 AD/CE, however, it wasn't Rome who needed the services of soldiers, it was a rebel whose military rank we don't know, but which appears not to have been among the three most senior in the provinces of Britain. He could inspire, cajole or threathen soldiers in the provinces he effectively commanded, but he might not have had ready cash available to hire mercenaries from abroad.

"Not to have been among the three most senior in the provinces" is one way to put it; Orosius said "a man from the lowest ranks of the soldiery", i.e., not an officer at all. That probably did him in good stead; even this late in the Imperial Army, the majority of Roman officers (as opposed to the barbarian officers) were politicians, looking to make some gelt, not professional soldiers. To me, Orosius' words suggest a rank of ducenarius, or senator, or even primicerius, depending on how you read them; in any case, it suggests he was a professional soldier who got as far as he did based on merit rather than familial connections or money.

Originally Posted by Icelander

That's not quite a fair characterisation. There are indications that the period 350-411 AD/CE actually saw quite a lot of campaigning by units of the Roman army stationed in the provinces of Britain and that many units were engaged quite far from their home bases. Not only in Pictland, but in various places in Gaul, in Hispania, Italica and even Pannonia.

Yes. And that campaigning was mostly done by external troops who came in to put down multiple invasions by the Scots, the Picts, the Caledonia, and the other north-of-the-Wall Celtic tribes; some of whom were likely federates themselves (i.e.: the Arcani, who were demobbed by Theodosius). And within what, twenty years after they arrived, the Britains had sent up not one but two imperial pretenders, with enough manpower to be quite successful (the aforementioned Theodosius, and Maximus). At no point are either of them credited with re-garrisoning the island; again, this is supported by the archaeology of the era.

And, on a purely literary basis, Constantine III had four known generals in his army; three were barbarians. According yo our sources, the vast bulk of his continental army was made up of the very barbarians (transrhenine Franks & Alamans) who invaded in the winter of 406.

Originally Posted by Icelander

I can't imagine that the comitatenses stationed in the provinces of Britain were left behind. And there is reason to believe that some of the limitanei stationed on the Wall had been made into pseudocomitatensis in the recent past and I imagine Flavius Claudius Constantinus made quite streneous efforts to bring every fighting man he could lay his hands on.

That he could get his hands on quickly. He had no money, as you observe; he had to get control of the Imperial Mint, or he was sunk. One of the curious quirks of the 4th C onward was the constant high-placed veniality of the Legions--or rather, their commanders. A dux was a crook, basically; to the point that simply wanting to do your job, even if you were bad at it, earned you panegyrics.* Barbarians could, and often were, bought off with the promise of a reward; no Roman officer worth his salt (sorry...) would even budge from his HQ without prepayment.

Originally Posted by Icelander

I think that most of the defenders of the Saxon Shore fortresses, as well as the entire remains of the field army of the Comes Brittaniarum and any formations that could be attached to it, were shipped over to Gaul. How many of the units that were assigned to the Wall went with them depends on the relationship between Coel Hen and Flavius Claudius Constantinus.

Personally, I think Coel Hen agreed to whatever Constantinus asked, but took care not to send anyone he couldn't lose and made sure that if a Roman army came back to Britain to put down a rebellion, he was not too closely associated with it. He probably even sent fulsome promises of support to whichever faction(s) he considered most likely to emerge victorious. Maybe Stilicho, maybe Alaric, maybe Maximus of Hispania. Maybe all of them and a few letters to the child-emperor Honorius, for good measure.

A close reading of the Notitia could support the robbing of the Saxon Shore units you propose; the units named in the Notitia could only supply 1/2 the Saxon Shore forts. I can't remember the author offhand (my Arthurian notes are buried under boxes of Easy-Ups and hoarded familial hand-me-downs) who posited a Valentinian attempt at 'reclaiming' the Island, following Aetius' defeat of the Bonifacius in 433**. If that number looks familiar to you, it coincides with the Battle of Gualloph.

If the Battle of Gualloph does actually portray a late Roman attempt to retake the Island, that would be very interesting, as it would pit Aetius' presumed deputy, Aurelius, against Vortigern, who had usurped power in the Island in 425, according to the Historia Brittonum. 425 was the year that the Emperor in the East, Theodosius II, defeated, mutilated, and executed Ioannes, the hand-picked successor to Honorius. Aetius was a loyal, and key, supporter of Ioannes, who survived the defeat of his master by dint of arriving late with a sizeable army of Huns in support (he had been a hostage to the Huns in his youth, and had earned the trust & friendship of many of the Hunnish nobility).

This creates an interesting picture: Vitalinus, a potentate in Britain during the final years of Honorius' reign, supports Ioannes' bid for the purple following the Emperor's death. Following Ioannes' death, he does the only thing he can do, as suicide is now forbidden by the Church--he declares himself Imperator. A dozen or so years later, his former friend & ally sends a military force against him, led by Ambrosius Aurelius.

*Ramsay MacMullen, Corruption & the Decline of Rome, and damn near every contemporary who wrote about politics or the military (same thing) during the 5th C onward.

**I hope I'm not getting my invasions confused. The Historia speaks of another invasion ca. 417, presumedly under Stilicho or one of his subordinates.