caldrail

But surely diocletians four way split was intended to prevent such uprisings in the first place by localising government into regions instead of one man struggling with an over-extended empire with too many self interests pulling away? Therefore aren't the events you list another sympton of the roman struggle against ambition in a powerful and competitively minded state?

The french are upset. Their entry for this years Eurovision Song Contest is to be sung in... wait for it... English! No, surely not.... The French are proud of their language, once the language of diplomacy. It seems that a nation whose quest to eradicate english words in their conversational language has now reached the ultimate irony. French politicians are dismayed - but good grief people, are you really taking the Eurovision Song Contest seriously? Worsening Situation of the Week This accolade definitely goes to Zimbabwe. Mugabe is determined to hold on to power and wants the vote recounted. Outbreaks of civil violence are reported. Armed chinese soldiers are reported in the country. A shipload of chinese armaments for Zimbabwe is refused permission to unload its cargo. The opposition claim a state of undeclared war exists. Robert Mugabe blames Britain for everything. Its all getting very predictable isn't it? But have you seen his moustache? What is it with dictators and moustaches? Are moustaches a symptom of megalomania? If his facial hair gets any worse, expect bad things to happen in Zimbabwe. New Arrivals of the Week The British National Space Centre, an organisation that co-ordinates civil space activities across government departments, is leaving London for a new home in Swindon. I welcome our cockney visitors and would happily take them to our leader. If any organisation is qualified to move to Swindon, its the BNSC. Lets face it, Swindon is full of aliens these days...

Live fast, die drunk....

Because he wanted to please the people he dedicated his work too and basically wanted to exercise his literary ambitions. Well he suceeded. There's 148 surviving complete latin manuscripts of his history and three fragments dating from the twelfth century. Geoffery was a best selling author of his day and indirectly inspired a whole genre which included notable writers such as Chretien Des Troyes and Thomas Mallory during the medieval period.

Bureaucracy - don't you just love it? The problem with being poor in Britain is that you have to prove it. Seriously, its no good turning up to a dole office unshaven, haggard, dressed in rags. You need documented proof that an agent of the government can photocopy and study in every detail. Even if you give them the proof, you can guarantee you'll be getting a letter four weeks later asking for the proof you submitted originally. Oh and it must have your name and address on it. My bank is fed up with me asking for two month statements. They used to accomodate my requests but now its a big deal - so far they haven't charged me for it despite several threats to do so. And letters of termination from my ex-employer? I got my last job through an agency, and their policy is not to send letters. They simply stop paying you when the vacancy is finished. The authorities simply do not understand this. So I trudge back and forth from office to desk to office to desk.... Well, you get the idea. There are people who live quite well on benefits in Britain How? Is there a secret handshake? Or do I need to be a refugee from eastern europe? Or should I spawn several screaming kids so the government can pay for their upbringing? Time to reassert my presidency of the Independent Peanut Republic of Rushey Platt and approach the UN for recognition... Canal Update of the Week Birmingham say Do It. Build the canal. The people of Swindon say no - don't do it - it'll only cost us money. Two local councillors say No, Don't Do It. Somehow you get the impression that some messianic person in authority will nonetheless order the construction of a new canal through Swindon (something Birmingham doesn't have to contend with, they simply reopened their existing ones). Whats the big deal? It'll be finished by 2025...

Hmmm... but surely if the earthquake shakes the cans about, isn't there a risk of damage to your fridge and therefore starvation due to food spoil? Its no good popping down to the supermarket afterward, theyve got more beer and fizzy drinks in one place than anyone. i suggest that for complete earthquake readiness, your own dairy cow and a chicken coup are absolutely essential. PS - dont forget your rambo survival knife, a bandana, some string, and a tarpaulin....

So the big question is - do you keep fizzy drinks in the fridge?

The impression I get is of a moderately talented commander who lacked the verve and daring of a greater man. Against pirates who were unlikey to be greatly organised (such geurilla/insurgent units rarely are, and only after protracted conflict do they learn the art of warfare by necessity and out of experience) he was able to conduct a great victory. Perhaps then it might be that Pompey was a thoughtful man, a general who tended toward contests of logic and approached warfare as we might a game of chess? Certainly against those who aren't on that intellectual level there is a chance of success, but against Caesar, a talented commander (if careless on campaign), a man who acted on his wits and had a better grasp of the dynamics of the battlefield, he would actually have been at a disadvantage. Lets not forget the pirates were raiding at will - its likely they were careless and contemptuous of roman defence, something that Pompey was able to exploit.

Coate Water is a local beauty spot. Built as a reservoir for the convenience of the 18th century canals that passed through the valley, its now a nature reserve and a pleasant walk. In the local paper however I discover that a weekend walker had discovered a body there. Apparently it had been there for months, almost reduced to a skeleton, hidden in a stagnant pond near the lake itself. As yet no-one knows who he is or how he met his fate, but the disturbing thing for me is that I've walked past him two or three times. Along with hundreds of early morning dog-walkers and afternoon strollers.

Regarding Geoffery of Monmouth, I discovered this criticism of his work... It is quite clear that everything this man wrote about Arthur and his successors, or indeed about his predecessors from Vortigern onwards, was made up, partly by himself and partly by others, either from an inordinate love of lying, or for the sake of pleasing the Britons Woah! Strong stuff. Now get this - that paragraph was written by one William of Newburgh in AD1190! Having had a chance to browse through a translation of Geoffery's book, its quite a piece of work. He starts the story with Brutus, the great grandson of Aeneas (yes, the same Aeneas who started the romans off), and the arrival of this man in Albion, a land empty of people bar a few giants, something like 1200BC. Within a chapter or two Brutus names the island after himself, and his three sons divide the island between themselves. Not without problems. Giants need to be wrestled, and Humber, King of the Huns, arrives to conquer Scotland. The new capital city of Britain is named Troia Nova (New Troy) and then.... Well.... I think you guess where this is all heading. Geoffery used information from Gildas, Nennius, the Venerable Bede, and some unknown work handed to him by his friend Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, a man described as an authority in history. So its not as if he was getting it wrong at all. His history is the ancestor of the modern arthurian legend, and creates a whole mythology concerning the early history of Britain. Geoffery, you're a fraud.

Isn't that a bit like living with a six pack of grenades in your fridge?

I've wondered about the smell too. Surely though the use of water could offset that to some degree, and in any case, I doubt living in a roman town was all that agreeable to thei sense of smell.

Ok, but then astrolgy has its roots in syrian cults adopted by members of the roman world and survives to this day, which suggests that whilst christianity dominated proceedings after acceptance by the roman empire, it never won that total victory it wanted - though it did come close.

My tip is not to keep fizzy drinks at home.

It is remarkable the romans never thought of something better to use. However, they used urine for practical purposes - it was a cheap resource and had a bleaching action. To our sensibilities of course its all a bit smelly and unhealthy, yet they used this method for century after century with no apparent problem. Fulleries were commonplace and reasonably successful commercially, since everyone needed clean toga's and tunics and the raw material was cheap, plus it wasn't a skilled job so any old slave could be employed to wash clothes.

This morning I popped into Lydiard Park. What a difference! After a five million pound restoration job the park is looking manicured and tidy. But.... Its also lost that rustic charm. I was young when I first starting going to Lydiard - it was a country park a few miles out of town back then. Now its on the edge of Swindon, a public open space, and the old untouched woodland has gone, undergrowth cleared, replaced by wide grassy meadows amongst the trees. The old lake has been cleaned up but despite promises its still smaller than its 18th century origin, the water level some 4 or 5 feet lower than the water line still clearly visible. The dam has been repaired and cleaned up, but it no longer serves as a scenic wier but rather an ornamental raised footpath. Five million quids worth. I don't like it. Earthquake Warning of the Week Be careful california, scientists expect an earthquake of 6.7 on the richter scale (thats Big But Not The Big One) somewhere before 2037. Inevitable they say, all the signs are pointing to an increase in gelogical tension. As an earthquake survivor myself - Yes, the earth really did move for me that night - I feel fully justified in putting on the sandwich board and wandering down the road shouting "The end is nigh!". Of course the americans won't listen but one day they'll be sorry.... Yes officer, I'll move along now....

Not an opinion really; just more questions. I've long thought of the Arthurian legends as so much romantic nonsense, never even considering any substance. But as I've read more of the history of Britain, while extending my interest in Roman civilization, I've been more persuaded of the authenticity of an Arthurian figure. Is the area you are referring to Caerwent/Venta Silurium? Not quite. According to legend Arthur originates from the west country (and welsh princes were ruling southwest england as far as somerset until conquered by Ecbert in the 9th century, a wessex king and later the first king of England). His uncle was Ambrosius Aurelianus, a man who apparently strove to recover dark age britain and return it to roman rule somewhat unsuccessfully. Thats all very well, but the battles that Arthur fought all seem to be in the north of England or Scotland, except possibly Mount Badon, his tremendous victory over the Saxons. Its not known which saxon group were defeated, nor where Mount Badon was, and some people have decided it was a victory against Wessex since they were militarily active in that period. This after all is what the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle suggests. I did a piece on Arthur a while back.... http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showto...t=0&start=0 Part of the problem is the human need for stories. Do-gooders may be people with higher purposes but ye gods are they dull to write about. The medieval period was a bit different, in that the do-gooders were military men striving for purity in a world of temptation, examples of what christian fighting men should be, and escapism from the gritty reality of life in manorial europe. This brings us neatly to Geoffery of Monmouth, who wrote an influential history of britain, and the first case of Arthur being credited with being a King. Geoffery was not the most enlightened of historians, and whilst he probably tried to do a good job, there are instances of him making some very odd conclusions. As an example, in relating the tale of West Saxon military expansion in the 6th century, he refers to african allies from Ireland. This obviously wasn

Or maybe it was his reward for winning the game of "hide n seek" he was playing. Okay, let me rephrase things ... assume for a moment that imperial succession worked the way it did with a stereotypical monarchy where the closest male relative becomes the new ruler ... who would it have been? As the struggle between Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian showed it could have been anyone with enough chutzpah and support. This was a inherent problem with Post-Republic Rome. Following the precedents set by Sulla and Caesar it was clear to all and sundry that power was there for the taking. If the current ruler is in a strong position, popular, well supported in the senate, the legions in his pocket etc, then there's less likeliehood of trouble. Augustus retained his power for many years (indeed, he was one of the few not removed from power by plots or coups) by some clever diplomacy and no small amount of civic bribery. On the other end of the scale, we have an opportunist like Didius Julianus who picks up the gauntlet thrown down by the praetorians and comes to a sticky end three months later for simply being unable to find any support whatsoever. The empire was anything but a stereotypical monarchy. Although described as such even by some roman writers, there was no formal hereditary succession. The emperors were in charge of an autocracy in which succession was by popularity, support, connections, selection by the previous ruler, or by military coup. Commodus was described as 'The first man born to the purple', which is the closest to a monarchy Rome ever came. Also, look closely at what was happening in Rome during Nero's reign. Once his mother had been gotten rid of and his advisors sidelined, he became something of a party animal, a socialite, a self-professed performer, and part-time chariot racer. Nero may not have been the first to display his 'talent' in public (Caligula had played the gladiator) but this ws still un-roman behaviour, not something a man of superior breeding and status should consider. Since he was more concernd with his social diary and gigging schedule Nero was losing support in the senate, and this led inevitably to them declaring Nero an Enemy of the State. Would they then accept any member of his family? A dour hermit, a looney, and now a performing artist? The successors of Augustus weren't making much of an impression on the movers and shakers. Titus in his younger days had similar inclinations to Nero and the worry was that he would turn out to be another Nero. Titus of course was more sensible, an cleaned up his act. He was also made of sterner stuff, having won military credibility in Judaea. This is another clue. There wasn't anyone else in the Julio-claudian line with enough of a reputation or faction to be seriously considered. There were other contenders, people considered more suitable either by themselves, the legions, or the senate.

The saxons certainly did move into Gaul even if they didn't conquer all of it. As mentioned above, the french town of Bayeux was a saxon settlement before Winchester (the capital of Wessex). In all fairness though I should point out some of my info is old, and if anyone has something more up to date, feel free. Going mainstream? Not sure what you mean by that.

The name 'Saxon' conjures up an image of a barbarian horde. They were not a popular people. One british monk described them as 'A race hateful to God'. After Augustine converted saxons to christianity from AD596, they were just as loathed as the pagans because they ignored Easter and held rituals on different days to the existing british church. Aggressive and bold, they were skilled seafarers feared even as far as the Bay of Biscay. Saxons weren't unknown in Britain at the end of the Western Roman Empire. Some had settled there and had become 'good roman citizens'. Certainly there were pockets of them outside their homeland, along the North Sea coast, and down the atlantic coast of Gaul, yet the late roman writers also refer to saxons as the most desperate of pirates. Clearly, there was a wide range in behaviour of these barbarians. The Saxon Shore of Kent was named that by the romans. There has been some debate over the emphasis of this phrase. Did it mean the saxons had settled the area (which they had, in small numbers), or did it mean a shore under threat?. The area features the remains of roman castles, stone fortifications built for defence. It therefore follows that some kind of threat existed, for the building of castles is labour intensive and certainly not something done lightly. This chain of defenses was referred to as limes in the Notitia Dignitatum, a document which included lists of miltary assets in the late empire. The word limes means the romans saw these forts as a frontier to be controlled and defended if need be. Waiting offshore were the vessels of the Saxons. Saxon ships were serviceable vessels capable of crossing the turbulent North Sea to England. Typically they might be seventy five feet long, with perhaps as many as a hundred crew if estimates using viking practice are valid. There is every reason to believe that the vikings adapted and improved on Saxon shipbuilding. By this stage of history roman ships had atrophied a great deal. The great galleys of the Punic Wars were no longer required, and probably none too capable of weathering the Oceanus Brittanicus if the experience of Caesar is anything to go by. The roman navy had concentrated on coastal action, using small ships that were easily manoevered upriver, ships that were severely challenged by Saxon longboats. Yet the romans did challenge saxon naval superiority, as in AD285 Carausius was commisioned to clear the sea of pirates, later to proclaim himself emperor for four years. Whether or not he succeeded in curtailing saxon activity, by the next century they were back, as in AD367 Ammanius describes Franks and Saxons as 'ravaging the coats of Britain'. Stilicho is given credit for suppressing Saxon aggression, and the father of Emperor Theodosius is known to have acted against them, and saxon raids of AD440-450 are the precursor to more permanent invasions later. Some time after the roman withdrawal in the around the start of the 5th century whole saxon communities along the northern coasts of Britain are abandoned. They moved southward, expanding into Gaul, the main target of saxon pirates. Bayeux after all was a saxon city before Winchester, and they conquered Gaul within fifty years. Inevitably however they moved against the british south coast. Was this purely a move to capture richer farmland, or a move to escape pictish raiding? Or threats from their fellow saxons? There were other motivations for saxon expansion. Rising sea levels had made many of their coastal settlements uninhabitable, and to a lesser extent, the pressure of human migration westwards in europe was making itself felt. In AD477, the strongest of the Saxon kings, Aella, landed at Anderitum (Pevensey). The roman castle there even at this stage was in a sorry state, presenting little difficulty to Aella's landing. The local populace may have rebelled against him later, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that he razed the british settlement there in AD491. This area was perhaps the most desirable, the most developed under roman rule, the closest to mainland europe and thus with the closest trading links. It was also the best defended even after the roman withdrawal for that very reason. Worse still, Aella's move opened the flood gates for similar action elsewhere. Britain was open for business. In AD495 a saxon chief named Cerdic landed on the south coast at a place named Cerdices-Ora, believed to be somewhere in Hampshire or the Southampton Water. This is a significant point, because that area had already been settled by Jutes, who occupied Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, without any known hostility. Nonetheless, three further landings by in AD501 at Portsmouth led by the chiefs Port, Bieda, and Maegla, and there is reason to believe these groups were Jutish. These landings soon provoked a response from the local peoples, and a king named Natanleod was defeated by the invaders in AD508 by the saxon warlords Cerdic and Cynric, giving a wide stretch of coastal territory. There is a record that Cerdic asked for military aid from Aesc, King of Kent, and Aella, the Great King of South Saxons, not to mention the jutish Port and his sons. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle specifically mentions the arrival of the West Saxons under Stufi and Wihtgar (Cerdics nephew) in AD514, leading to a significant battle at Cerdicesford (Charford) 5 years later and the establishing of the realm of Wessex (The West Saxons with Cerdic and Cynric in power by AD519. Although the original borders are unclear, its believed it closely followed the boundaroes of Hampshire at this time. This boundary was further enforced by the attack on Calleva (Silchester) sometime between AD508-14. The city was razed. There followed a thirty year period of consolidation as the West Saxons brought their new-found influence to bear on the local populations. They established harbours on the coast of Britain that are still there today, and trading links with the continent were reopened. There appears to have been almost no problems apart from one battle named Cerdicesleaga in 527, and this may have been a victory for the Britons. In fact, the Britons were actively seeking to prevent any further incursion of these hostile men. Defensive earthworks were dug and given the Saxon aversion to siege warfare, its probably not suprising they found them real obstacles.At point between AD491-520, however, we have a reference to a battle at Mons Badonicus (Mount Badon, location unknown) - which was a complete victory for the Arthur of legend, who is said to have personally slain over nine hundred west saxon enemies. The validity of this battle is still debated. The period of peace ended with an expansion into Wiltshire, leaving the jutish regions and taking on the Britons head first. Searobyrig (Old Sarum) was captured in AD552. Four years later Bera arrived at Beranburgh (Barbury Castle) more than thirty miles to the north and took the old hill fort for his own use (it's named after him) although it may be possible that Cynric and Caewlin fought the battle and left Bera as the local overlord. His victory meant that the Kingdom of Wessex had won land as far north as the River Thames. It also meant the old roman road between Silchester and Badbury had been cut off, thus severly weakening the british earthworks in areas such as Andover. Territory was rapidly falling into West Saxon hands. Berkshire was absorbed and Caewlin even took control of Surrey after defeating Aethelberht of Kent in AD568 at the battle of Wibbandun (Wimbledon). An advance by Cuthwulf (or Cutha) crossed the Thames in 571 reaching Aylesbury, and the westward expansion had reached Somerset, then in welsh hands. All this was leading to a great stand-off battle, and this was the battle of Deorham (Dyrham) in AD577. Curthwine and Ceawlin, the West Saxon kings, slew the three british kings opposing them. The deaths of Commail, Condidan, and Farinmail brought Gloucester, Cirencester, and Bath under Saxon control. A northward advance into the Severn Valley led to the battle of Fethanleag in AD584, a rewarding victory for Caewlin but one that also saw the death of his bother Cutha. The two brothers had been intense rivals and their supporters had squabbled. This battle was the final move in the rapid expansion of Wessex. Caewlins fortunes were to change. In 591 an alliance of Britons and Angles(?) defeated him at Woddesbeorg and he was 'expelled', dying the next year. The Severn Valley would later be taken by Mercia, and for a short while Northumbria was dominant in Britain. The future for Wessex was a long struggle against the Welsh, particularly the absorption of the old kingdom of Dyrwaint (Dorset) but Wessex would never return to the size of territory it held up until Fethanleag. Nonetheless, this constant military struggle made Wessex men known for their skill in combat, the realm was less divided than Mercia or Northumbria, and ultimately Cerdic's descendants would emerge as the future kings of England. The majority of these events are related by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Gildas, or the Venerable Bede in later years. History is written by the victors and indeed there has been some arguement over the validity of the stories, with detractors pointing out inconsistencies in the names of individuals involved, the length of their reigns (Cerdic ruled for forty years, his son Cynric for twenty six), and some doubt as to the origin of the Saxons who landed at end of the 5th century onward. Further doubt has been cast over whether the saxons could have usefully employed the roman agricultural enviroment in abandoned areas, as thick woodland and undergrowth soon recaptures the fields. This ignores the growth of mature trees within fifty years that stifle the undergrowth and allow easier deforestation, and for that reason its believed that saxon farming generally followed the roman pattern. There is also an interesting anecdote mentioned by Geoffery of Monmouth in his History of Britain. He mentions allies of Wessex from Ireland, a group of 'africans', who fought with Caewlin at Deorham. How could that be? Geoffery is guilty of misinterpreting an irish chronicle, which refers to 'black heathens', which the medieval Geoffery could only assume was a description of africans. Not so. The irish description applies to Danes, scandanavian settlers who reached the Emerald Isle long before the traditional beginning of Viking raids. It may not be proof, but there is a strong suggestion that the British Isles were being settled from the continent over a long period of time, and that they were not always welcome by the native Britons. Those opinions would not be forgotten easily and echoes of them exist to this day.

Following the passiing on of Charlton Heston, it turns out that the man himself visited grotty old Swindon in July 1968 because his families nanny, one Murial Loveridge, was a swindoner. He happened to be in britain at the time, appearing on stage in Bath, and popped across discreetly. Apparently he called in for lunch to the Riflemans Arms in town (now the Plum Tree - why do people have to keep changing pub names these days?) which caused a bit of a stir. I've fed and watered myself in that very pub many times - albeit without causing quite such a reaction.... So - Moses came to Swindon. Its a small world. It really is. Rural Oddity of the Week Wandering around my local area, I visited some agricultural land left fallow, hemmed in by railways departed and in use, plus the River ray and some recent housing developments, particularly the houses built on the old moredon power station site (I remember watching the explosive demolition of the cooling towers) and the new recycling center. I knew deer inhabited the area, but I was suprised at how calm this particular animal was to human beings in the vicinity. It sort of gave me an appraisal them wandered off into the undergrowth just to be on the safe side. Well, the natural side of things was great, but I noticed some lorry tires amongst the grass and that woody white stuff you see growing near water. More tires over there. And there. And over there... A field full of overgrown discarded lorry tires. Bizarre! Considering how remote the field has become in recent years, you have to wonder how those tires got there in the first place.

Thats an interesting point, because some people believe the latinisation of the mediterranean caused a cultural schism that has had ramifications to this very day, particularly in the latin vs germanic sense. It is true that Rome gave a sense of common identity to those areas it had controlled, certainly not to those it didn't. Also, like any powerful centralised state, it imposed order across its territory (well... usually anyway...) and as events in modern europe have shown, once that authority is gone old and new rivalries emerge even to the point of violence, like squabbling siblings. When I hear of efforts to bring Europe together under one government I shake my head. It worked for the romans because they had their culture packaged and ready for delivery, all you had to do was sign up and pay their taxes and all the benefits of roman society were yours. Thats all well and good, but the romans had something to offer, something that was arguably better than a mud hut in a temperate rainforest hunting squirrels for survival. But what does a modern united europe offer? Everything we've already got. This political will to recreate a new roman empire is sooner or later going to end in tears. To start with, a few politicians will get their name in the history books (one wonders if that isn't the entire point of it) and some generations down the line, nationalism (or ethnic tribalism) will re-emerge and another cycle of violence will result. We've learned how to co-exist peacefully with each other so why ruin it by sweeping all those established relationships aside? Rome could do so because ultimately it had a military prepared to put down revolutions mercilessly. Romes failure of course is that the military was often the revolutionary, and once that military was no longer able to dominate, Rome fell by the wayside. Who remembers the byzantines in the same light? Isn't our fondness for the roman world a desire to relive past glories, real or imagined?

Republican soldiers were married? Thats interesting - I always thought the prohibition on such things dated way back before Augustus. Is this simply a case of Augustus putting old standards back in place?

As far as I can see, there doesn't seem to be any official ruling on this (please feel free to prove me wrong). When an assault finally takes places at a siege, the men are off the leash, and any loot they carry off is theirs. This sort of thing happened in Jerusalem, where the amount of gold being spent by legionaries involved caused the value of it to plumett in the middle east. But if the city surrenders in orderly fashion? Then without doubt there is also an orderly change in ownership of valuables (or else) and the generals are the obvious owners of the bulk of it, although perhaps a wise general would make a gift of a large portion?

The tradition of freeing was common to medieval Europe. In Germany the tradition of serfdom after a year and a day was recorded. However to return to the original point, NN and myself are somewhat at opposite poles regarding saxon settlement. We both refer to evidence and reach different conclusions. This time I'm going to suggest something else for consideration, the Caldrail Theory of Arthurian COnflict. Now some might be already rolling their eyes - I don't care. What I'm suggesting is that once you strip away the medieval fantasy and celtic legend, there is a story of romano-celtic resistance not to the saxons, jutes, angles et al, but to picts, scots, and irish scots during the same period. Now whereas we know the saxons weren't popular (being aggressive and greedy heathens) and that they resorted to violence to claim british land on occaision, we also know they were invited over at least once (by Vortigern). What if the pressure in early dark age britain wasn't so much saxons, who may have been valuable if distrusted allies, but the invaders from north and west who may have been taking advantage of the roman withdrawal? The arthurian mythos suggests these conflicts took place in northern england or scotland, yet arthurs origin is firmly in the west country, one of the last regions to have been settled by saxons. Opinions everyone?