Gildas - The Last Romano-Briton

[@johnbell709]

This whole podcast is first class in my opinion

[@kelvyquayo]

One of top search results on KZbin for Gildas. Exquisite 👍🏽 I am about to recite the EXCIDIO on my channel 😎

[@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333]

His known movements, I.e., buried in Brittany where his people sought refuge, pretty much confirms everything he said.

[@trevormegson7583]

Eye/thought opening.

[@histguy101]

Gildas is invaluable. That this was a sermon or religious commentary takes nothing away from the current and recent events that he comments on. I really don't understand that idea that his worldview should be brought into question when analyzing the veracity of his commentary.

[@anglo-saxonenglandpodcast9965]

I don't deny that he is invaluable. My point is that because he gives very few details about when and where things happened it is very difficult to use his work as history without pointing out that he actually gives us very little information. As for his worldview, it is absolutely relevant that he still thought of things in term of Roman customs because on the one hand it tells us that those attitudes were still circulating in Britain and on the other it means that we need to take it into account when looking at how he presents the events he describes. I'm not saying he was lying, only that we need to be aware of his background when reading him.

[@thewingedserpent5823]

How the fuck is the point of view from which he writes NOT important when analyzing the material. That's the first thing you take into consideration.

[@histguy101]

@@thewingedserpent5823 So, let's say it's a sermon. It's written and passed around, and read publicly. When he's writing of current or recent events, it's presumably to an audience who is also aware of said events. It may be hyperbolic, or moralistic, but when he names people, places, battles, events, etc he's talking about real things. He's not just making it up, or his audience wouldn't know what he's talking about. It's essentially an ancient newspaper essay

[@a......5214]

Brilliant thanks 😊 👍

[@ynysmones3816]

Nice

[@1258-Eckhart]

Thanks for this excellent, well informed introduction to a rather shadowy historical figure. I would only add that Wikipedia connects him with the monastery of St. Gildas de Rhuys in Britanny, a speculation which you suppressed. But no matter, I wish briefly to ride quite a different hobbyhorse who goes by the name of Pedanticum. Various sources (incl. Wiki) translate Gildas' "tyrannus" as "usurper", which presupposes the existence of a legitimate Britannic kingship. Nobody knows this! Nobody can corroborate the continued existence of some royal house of Cymbeline, which Vortigern could have overthrown ("usurped"). Instead, Gildas' (and later, Bede's) invective points to a wastrel warlord who must have catapulted himself to power by violent means ("creating facts"). German has a well-serviceable term for this: "Alleinherrscher" (autocrat). I suggest we refer to Vortigern rather as an autocrat or (shock-horror) a tyrant (Plato, "Gorgias"), not as "usurper". Since we are here at repose amongst Anglosaxon scholarship, I would also point out that Gildas was, unlike Geoffrey of Monmouth nearly a milennium later, an objective commentator on political realities in the earliest years of Saxon colonisation. All was not well with post-Roman Britannicum and it is less fraught to see Ambrosius Aurelianus' heroics at the Mons Badonicus as in unilateral britannic eyes only a symptom of, rather than proof of, some kind of Saxon "treachery". There was a tribute due to Hengist for military support and it seems according to Gildas uncontroversial to assume that the tribute was not paid by Vortigern, thus instigating regress (contractual adversity). Subscribed.

[@histguy101]

Tyrant is the most appropriate modern English translation, in my opinion. While usurpers were often designated Tyrannus(especially if the usurpation was short lived), but so were legitimate rulers, especially the heavy handed ones. Autocrat would be an inappropriate translation, as unlike its modern usage, it carried no negative connotation in late antiquity, and was usually analogous to "emperor."

[@thewingedserpent5823]

Why would you mention something being written on Wikipedia as if that would somehow make it more legitimate? Also, how is not mentioning a speculative connection the same as "suppressing" something. What kind of conspiracy would that even be? Especially since he also mentioned it.