Talk:De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

2.2.1 Condemnations

As of Oct 2013, the paragraph offering speculation on the reason for Gildas' disaffection appears to be original research and cites no sources for its conclusions. Specifically the "unclean lioness of Damnonia" is puported to refer to Constantine's mother specifically, rather than the nation of "Damnonia" personified as a lioness meaning Constantine is a son of his country.

Gildas uses similar wording in describing the Saxons: "a multitude of whelps came forth from the lair of this barbaric lioness in three cyuls".

There is no reference given for this original interpretation of "unclean lioness of Damnonia" as Constantine's mother. It would be better to leave the reader to speculate than to publish original research against Wikipedia policy.

Split

I have split this article off from Gildas, as it was easily long enough for its own article. I've left a summary at that article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wall

Gildas offers one of the first descriptions of Hadrian's Wall — albeit historically highly inaccurate

No, the Victorians thought he was highly inaccurate- because they were not aware of an archaeological fact that has been known since at least the 1960s: the western half of Hadrian's Wall was originally an earthwork- Gildas' "wall of turves"- he wasn't referring to the Antonine Wall at all, which he probably never heard of. The western earthwork was indeed overrun during the invasion of 192, and was rebuilt in masonry just as Gildas said. Solicitr (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Gildas' account of the wall(s) is historically inaccurate in a couple of respects. First, he says the first wall - the earth one - was built by Magnus Maximus, who flourished in the 4th century, long after the Roman walls had been built. He says that a different, stone wall was built later, along with shore forts. He may have been thinking that Maximus built the earthen Antonine Wall, and that a second wave of Romans built the stone Hadrian's Wall. Or, as you suggest, he may have meant that Maximus built an earth wall at the site of Hadrian's Wall, and that the second wave rebuilt it in stone. Either way, it's clearly inaccurate. (see for example this book).

On his sources, he says he relied on continental sources, as he couldn't find any British sources for the period.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was muzzy last night and somehow got Gildas and the "Nennius" compilation mixed up. Gildas' chronological placement- post-Maximus- is of course all wrong. But his sequence is OK if one understands him not to be talking about the Antonine wall at all, which had been beyond the provincial boundary for centuries by Gildas' time. Even his characterization of the Romans building the successive walls and "leaving" is not as far-off as it might look, if one accepts the apparent evidence that Theodosius, after the invasion of 367, didn't have the troops to re-garrison the fortresses and so planted British buffer-kingdoms in the northern defensive zone instead; it also *may* be the case, based on very sketchy archaeology, that the legionary base at Carlisle was abandoned or turned over at this time. Solicitr (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No matter how you look at it, some parts of his account are off. He says that the first, earthen wall was built after Maximus's revolt (not by Maximus himself as I previously said). In reality Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall had been built over 200 years before. The historical Maximus was contemporary with a reconstruction of Hadrian's Wall, but it was all stone at that point. Then, Gildas says that after Maximus, the Roman cavalry built a second wall, made of stone this time, as well as shore forts. In reality, Stilicho sent the cavalry to Britain in the late 4th century; they restored the shore forts, but Hadrian's Wall had already been abandoned. Even if he has the sequence right, he's off on a many of the other details.

For what it's worth, one of the sources I added (Gransden) says that Gildas may have been talking about the Vellum on the south side of Hadrian's Wall as the earth wall, and the Wall itself as the stone wall. Makes sense to me, but of course both of them long predated the 4th century.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Manuscript history?

This article is direly missing information on the manuscript tradition of this text. If you can shed light on this, please do so. Thanks! -- 77.21.99.8 (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I found an online history at www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/gildas.htm but I'm not sure if it's a good enough reference. Also need to find out where the name comes from because it doesn't really describe the conquest of Britain. The invading forces are defeated and sent home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.161.142 (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that the De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae was written as a sermon. It was a rant against the British population who had exhausted themselves with civil war, internal disputes, and general unrest plus had invited the Saxons in (who he described as being invited in like wolves to the sheeps fold) to protect the country from the Picts and the Scots (who he described as worms coming forth from their holes). Essentially he thought that the British leaders were ruining the country. He describes the conquest of the country by the Romans in some detail. The vortigenstudies website has been cited elsewhere so you could probably use it without a problem. Alternatively they list all the manuscripts used plus their reference numbers so you could just cite those directly. Wilfridselsey (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe the Vortigern Studies site is a personal site of some history enthusiasts; if so it should be avoided as there are plenty of published sources available.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Annales Cambriae

Worth pointing out that the Annales Cambriae doesn't have dates for this period,* so comparing someone's reconstructed date (which should be more exactly specified) is generally only going to be helpful for assessing the accuracy of their reconstruction.

• The B & C texts have entries back to Christ, but lost about 30 years before the dates start in the 13th century. Where those 30 years go is part of the reconstruction process.  — LlywelynII 11:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)