caldrail

They'd be daft not to, or the weapon has limited utility. But the standard training of legionary swordplay featured thrusting. No, the epee doesn't have a sharp edge nor do some cleaver style swords have points. Nope. Try that in combat and you won't be holding the sword for long. The short length can be a disadvantage. It requires more guts and practice to get in close. Swords became shorter during the empire and the style more fancy and florid. From the 3rd century AD the gladius is dropped very quickly in favour of the longer spatha, which wasn't generally used to thrust and could be used by poorly trained troops. Long reach is useful if your opponent has shorter weaponry. The reason the romans used a short blade is a quickdraw principle based on the mass formation of a hevavy infantry unit. Yes, that wicked point was there for a purpose. Both Livy and Polybius discuss swordfighting and confirm the changes of style over time.

Both versions of the pilum are intended to do the same thing. Prevent an enemy return throw, penetrate the shield, injure the bearer, make the shield unwieldy, allow the shield to be dropped by stepping on the shaft.

Vercingetroix had to command a nation that wasn't united in the first place. He actually did brilliantly even with the result he got in my view. As for julius, failure meant an end to his ambitions and possibly his life.

It depends what you mean. For instance we read the tales of Robin Hood and enjoy films about him. The theme is pretty well known - dispossessed nobleman who very nobley fights back by becoming a bandit who steals from wealthy people and provides charity to the downtrodden poor of Nottingham Forest. But its balderdash. A victorian wet dream. Yes, there was a Robin Hood and a band of men, but they weren't so merry (unless they'd stolen enough to visit a tavern) and in all probability were a right bunch of cut-throats. Thats doesn't make for a very good story though does it? So lets make them noble of spirit and fighting oppression of the evil sheriff.... Arthur has been treated the same way. A real person existed back at the turn of the 6th century whose name refuses to be wiped away from history. Why? Because someone was remembering him. Passing on his story and eventually that story is embellished. By the ninth century his name was such that he was used as the hero of traditional celtic swords & sorcery adventures. The next century saw him popularly assigned as a former king of england and from there Geoffery established the myth. All myths grow from something. people don;t say these things for nothing. Like Nero, fiddling while Rome burned. No, he didn't. He did what he could to assist the relief efforts. Its possible that for a few moments he stood there on a high balcony staring helplessly at the conflagration and might even have been moved to singing at the sight of it, but he wasn't blind to the suffering of the populace. When he redesigned Rome, he required wide boulevards to stop fires like this and even introduced anti-fire building regulations. The truth has been forgotten. Perhaps important historical documents have been lost through accident or decay that would have told us so much. All we have are a few tantalising clues. The fact that these stories begin at the time Arthur is meant to live and that they evolve shows that he made an impression. A deep one. As anyone who researches this subject can tell you, the original sources are unreliable. Not untrue.

Its important to realise that modern eyesight is not so good in general. Nature works on the principle of survival of the fittest. Since we now extend the life of people with poor eyesight by artificial enhancement these characteristics are passed on to their descendants. Thats the trade-off in civilisation. Eyesight in times past was better than ours, although old age and disease might still take its toll. Back then of course it was a big deal because unless you were wealthy there was little to be done. Usually in older societies like Rome you see a certain amount of charity or social care on an informal or family basis. However, in many cases, you would indeed see blind men by the roadside begging for coins.

They may have done that sometimes, not always. Rivers were indeed popular for vikings and others, including the native anglo-saxons, making it easy for moving through countryside because the country was largely forested wilderness and difficult to pass through. Yes, many people were illiterate. Scholarly people were in demand for their services for that very reason. Ruralisation? No, that happened after AD410. People were already well established in rural life by the medieval period, which I must point out was a good time for farming due to the climatic changes. To underline what I said earlier, I notice from York Museum that travel was commonplace during this period. One monk made visits (Yes, plural) to Rome to bring back holy texts to Lindisfarne. Trade was still in place. It really was the chaotic government of the period that gives rise to the idea of a 'dark' age.

Disagree. Tolerance is exactly what Pliny is suggesting. But neither should that mean they get special treatment because would cause bad feeling amongst the pagan masses.

Geoffery made a lot of it up. The reality is hidden in the comments of people who wrote in the 6th century such as Gildas, Nennius, and Taliesin.

The blade is heavy despite the short length and well capable of delivering slashing attacks. Republican armies were taught to stab only, but the shortening sword lengths of the empire and the changes in style meant that slashing attacks were increasingly used. Eventually this led to the abandonment of the gladius because poorly trained troops preferred a longer weapon to keep the enemy at bay.

Well this is just my opinion, but the hinged shank design had one failing in that it wouldn't withstand sideways loads. So if the legionary accidentally knocked the point the pilum might turn useless very quickly. A bendy shank can be straightened very easily, even without the need of craftsmen probably, but still not easily enough to let the enemy do that on the battlefield when they're likely to be somewhat busy! A normal spear thrown against a shield can be thrown back. Soldiers are crafty beggars like that and the romans considered that it would be better if a thrown pilum was useless to the enemy. The ability to deshield your opponent is a by-product, not the original intent. Ok. You're facing a roman legion. Your commander realises the action is about to start and calls for you all to form a shield wall. Thats just commonsense - the romans have spears after all. Sure enough, as they close in, their tropops loose a volley of those plia of theirs. There's a crescendo of wooden thwocks and screams as some men are killed or injured by the metal points piercing their protection. Your own shield takes two pila in close succession. One simply penetrates the shield but glances off a leather strap having lost momentum. The second enters your left shoulder. First of all you are knocked back a step or two. The first pilum is now only supported by the shield and the shaft end falls to the ground. The bending may or may not be minimal perhaps but if you move the shield it might get worse because of the leverage. At any rate, the advancing romans might well employ this to their advantage when the melee starts. Whats of more concern to you is the second pilum which injured your shoulder. That isn't so easily removed and the weight of the shaft tends to pull you forward as you try to relieve the pain. If you do manage to remove it, and you will likely need to reach over the shield, there is a possibility that your arm movement will cause the shank to bend as it pulls the pilum clear. those pila that landed in the mud at your feet have stuck in the ground and bent immediately afterward because the shank cannot support the shafts weight. Those that hit the ground and slid along were bent on impact. Be ready because the romans have arrived. Your shield is damaged, so are you, the roman pila are no use to you, and your sword is somewhere on the floor as you try to remove the pila from your shield. Good luck

The aqueducts were falling into disrepair during the end of the empire anyway. The goths may not have had the ingenuity to repair them but neither did the romans by that time. All the skilled engineers were seeking better pay and that meant byzantium. There's more to it than that. The germanic tribes were under pressure. Their coastal habitats were being inundated by rises in sea level (the start of the Medieval Warm Period?) and in particular the saxons were forced to to become bandits and raiders. Britain suddenly became a valuable tract of arable land suitable for colonisation. Ok, its true that the roman military was a deterrent, but then again the roman military didn't just vanish. Many units were withdrawn before the collapse and romano-british culture was decaying. In AD408 the romans simply stopped paying soldiers based in britain. Trade did not cease during the dark age, nor was it any more difficult. A little more dangerous perhaps given the numbers of people willing to take something for nothing, but communities still needed to exchange goods and services and this continued unabated. Traders like desperate communities. It gives them an edge. We are talking about a time when christianity flourished in britain, whose monastic institutes were the bedrock of art and literature despite barbarian lootings. The roman defenses were struggling to fend off saxon intrusions, and the reason the vikings found it so easy (though they didn't always in actual fact) was because they were able to sail up estuaries and rivers and mount suprise attacks. There simply wasn't any way of guarding the seashore and waterways in the manner we expect of recent times. All the populace could do was raise hue and cry when the attack came and hope that resistance could be mounted quickly enough. Thats not easy. They didn't have telephones and reacted at the speed of a messengers travel. Remember that once the vikings were here on a long term basis they started losing battles. Suprise raids were something they excelled at, but not formal battles. Both Alfred the Great and his welsh counterpart (I do apologise but I've forgotten his name -Owain? Rhodri?) gave the vikings a bloody nose. The dark ages seem terrible because of all the violence. Agriculture was struggling in this period and I confess there was some rural hardship because of it. The truth is distorted because we read only of the violence and not the periods of peace between them. Also the battles would only occur in specific places, not a nationwide front like today. As I mentioned, art and literature were not suffering and indeed under the aegis of the christian church was actually doing well. Sure, the old roman infrastructure has collapsed. By AD450 the old taxation and governmental structure had gone. Once palatial villas were abandoned or used as farmyards. The dark ages were a time of poverty after all.

Er, what "chroniclers of the time"? Is there a source older than Geoffrey? ETA: OK, just read your OP in that thread. I admit I'm in over my head, but in moving so "confidently" beyond Geoffrey, you seem to be making some rather shakey leaps of faith. Just my impression. I'm relying on expert analysis by people who know the subject far more than I. Regarding Arthurs character, and those comments are my own, I wouldn't say that was a leap of faith. The man was real - he existed - its more a matter of trying to figure out where the truth is. Those chroniclers were writing on the basis of poor information and for that reason there are too many inconsistencies for those sources to be judged reliable. Nonetheless, we have a man who leads an army to victory twelve times, whose legend survives to this day, but whose person and history is otherwise forgotten.

Its been suggested that other historical personalities are responsible for events and not Arthur. This is understandable because the guys legend was always rising to the best seller list. However, under close scrutiny there are gaps that Arthur fills very nicely. Ambrosius Aurelianus for instance is supposed to have formed a british confederation at the end of the 5th century to fight against the foreign incursions. That marks him as a capable diplomat, someone who is well versed in the etiquette and protocol of dark age britain given the arguementative state of the petty nations. Arthur doesn't seem to have this skill. He seems more like a man who is blunt, a loose cannon on deck. A useful man to have leading your armies but lets leave the deals to Ambrosius, yes? I think one of the reasons his historical reference is muted is because no-one wanted him as king. A guy like that? He'll be annexing our country next! Trouble is, Arthur was for many ordinary people the hero who came over the hill and send the bad guys packing. There was a risk that his popularity would make him king. So I really do wonder if the kings in the confederation (and ambrosius too?) never intended Arthur to get all the glory. In the end, Ambrosius seems a lacklustre character yet Arthur is impossible to put back in the box. As to whether the chroniclers were aiding this 'conspiracy' is unknown, but Gildas, ever the angry radical, foams at the mouth about tyrannical kings and lambasts his colleagues as toadies. Its isn't impossible that Arthurs part in history has been ignored.

Strictly speaking the possibility of upward and downward movement of areas of the earths crust can occur, though this is usually at the contact area of tectonic plates rather than places where they're coming apart. For instance, there are places along the mediterranean coast which have risen above and fallen below sea level as the coast buckles under pressure from the african plate. For any appreciable land mass to rise is something exceptional. Not completely impossible perhaps. The Deccan Hills in India are the result of a single volcanic lava flow occurring in the cretaceous period. However, to my mind something isn't right about this theory that a large land mass appeared then vanished. Its another case of seeing what you want to. I've just posted athread on this subject. No, Ambrosius and others got their own glory. Arthur wasn't regarded as a particularly worthy guy by the kings of his time, and I strongly suspect that they let him strut his stuff because it suited their purposes. In fact, the chroniclers of the time either ignore Arthur or condemn him, whereas his competitors simply don't have Arthurs presence in dark age britain. I agree. They have muddied the waters somewhat but also remember that if you want to rewrite history, even with the best intentions, you have to convince the establishment that everything they've studied and taught is... well.... wrong. Learned people do tend to get upest about that!

I find this a bit strange. The romans are describing relationships between barbarians that infer there is open homosexuality, and obviously doing so looking down their noses. Yet we know that the romans themselves were as tactile as modern italians and could be described in the exact same manner. There seems to be ambivalence here, because on the one hand its acceptable for a man to display his manhood and mastery by these acts and on the other be regarded as less than moral according to circumstance. It is noticeable that for a man to be the receiving partner is undesirable because he is acting as the female partner, and therefore laying aside his manhood. But emperors who committed these acts (one or two did so openly) do not suffer from these comments other than a general criticism of their moral behaviour.

Trajan was an emperor who gave Rome another taste of glory. For that, and the games given to celebrate his successes, he is remembered as a great emperor. Trajan of course is someone who broke the mould somewhat. He was the first non-roman emperor, a spaniard. The story goes that on his first speech to the senate, his dago accent had the senators rolling in the aisles. Well, he had the last laugh didn't he? For all his good attributes we must remember that he was also a roman emperor, and a successful one. No-one does this without political savvy and strongwill. He is after all the emmperor who staged 120 days of games to celebrate his victory in Dacia. Thats a third of the year devoted to public entertainment. The thousands of gladiators, POW's, and animals slain during that period can't be ignored. So why do christians praise him? partly because he never persecuted them, but also because they shared the benefits of his reign. The christian church is after all descended from roman catholicism based in the late roman empire, which remembered him as one of romes finest emperors.

The legend of King Arthur is well known to us. The seductive image of a noble king ruling the land with his chivalrous knights righting wrongs and courting ladies of virtue are the source of countless books and films. These stories were romances, and the definitive version on which we base our modern tales was Morte D'Arthur (The Death of Arthur) written in 1480 by Thomas Mallory. The story was taken from a set of five volumes written during the 14th century. Attributed to Walter Map, a cistercian cleric, the Vulgate Cycle was probably the accumulated effort of his fellow monks. In the cycle were Estoire Del Saint Graal (History of the Grail), Estoire De Merlin (History of Merlin), Lancelot, Queste Del Saint Graal (Quest for the Holy Grail), Morte De La Roi Artu (Death of King Arthur) The Cycle was in turn a development of Chretien Des Troyes work, Perceval, written in 1185 but never completed. Chretien had written arthurian tales before and was an established author in this field. Perceval was rewritten with different endings by other authors of the period. In turn, these romances had been inspired by earlier poets and authors, and the trail goes back to a gentleman named Geoffery of Monmouth who lived between 1129 and 1151. This author established many of the themes we read of today and even included Arthur as a historical king in his latin work Historia Regum Brittanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) completed in 1136. Geoffery claimed historical references for his work but this has been disputed, and clearly depicts a medieval court with Arthur at its head. Before this, we have the tales of celtic tradition, in which Arthur is not the idealized chivalric king, but a brave hero struggling against monsters of the underworld and undergoing mystical quests. These tales emerge in the ninth century in a work named Preiddeu Annwn (Spoils of the World) and there seems to be a connection with celtic mythos of a much earlier period, in which Arthur is placed as the hero of tales existing from centuries before. There is an historical reference to Arthur contained in Vita Sanctae Gildas (Life of Gildas) which mentions the rebellious tyrant Arthur as besieging Glastonia to rescue his queen from the clutches of King Melwas. Perhaps the earliest historical reference is from a man named Nennius, whose Annals Cambriae (Annals of Wales) mentions our famous warrior as the victor of twelve battles against the saxons, picts, and irish. Nennius infers that Arthur is Dux Bellorum (Duke of Battles) and therefore a military leader and not a king, a title ascribed to him from the eleventh century in romantic fiction. In fact, its clear that Arthur commanded an army assembled from those of british kings. His campaign began with a battle at the mouth of the River Glein. Four more were fought on the River Dubglas in a region named Linnus, followed by another by the River Bassus. More victories took place at the Forest of Celidon, the Fort of Guinnion, the City of Legions, the River Tribuit, the Mountain of Agned (or Cat Bregouin), and at last his epic finale at the Battle of Badon in which Arthur was reported to have personally slain 960 men. This account is difficult to prove because the locations are no longer known. The afore-mentioned Gildas, a monk whose main work was the De Excidio Brittanniae of AD540, had personal reasons not to praise or mention Arthur. His brothers were pirates whom Arthur had executed, and the story goes that Gildas took all his works mentioning Arthur and threw them into the sea. This establishes the time at which Arthur lived since Gildas was said to have been born in year the Battle of Badon was won. The Venerable Bede doesn't even mention Arthur at all. The earliest reference of all is credited to the bard Taliesin, who is said to have included him and his quests in a sixth century poem. But what of the Britain that Arthur knew in the 6th century? He was born into a world where roman power had collapsed. Following the abandonment of Britain in AD410, a series of petty rulers emerged until AD425 when Vortigern claimed Britain as his realm in its entirety although its only established that he ruled Kent. In AD440 he appealed for help against the picts to two Jutish chiefs, Hengist and Horsa. According to contemporary sources, the english king escaped a saxon plot to murder his nobles from which he escapes to Wales, where he later dies in a fire, but theres no mention of the defeat of Vortigern in the Battle of Aylesford in AD449, nor his earlier attempt to ask the saxons to go home. Finally by AD450 the roman government had evaporated. As late as AD495 the saxons were still arriving, followed by the angles thirty years later who went on to dominate northern england and create the realm of Mercia. The historical sources of these times are not judged reliable, but its noticeable that Vortigern is described as a villain for inviting the saxons into Britain. These were days of tribal migration and battles for territory. Despite the terrible reputation won by the saxons, both they and the angles were capable farmers who preferred the flatter lowlands for agriculture, which left mountainous refuges for the hardpressed and disunited britons. The real Arthur is perhaps a determined capable general, a man who has set himself the task of pacifying the island. If these ancient texts are to be believed, then Arthur was a brutal and cruel man who preferred swift justice and freedom to act. His persona certainly made an impression since he was later placed as the hero of mythic tales when clearly his peers regarded him as a tyrant. Right from the beginning his reputation as a warrior had been turned to romance by the bards of the time despite the censorship of the chroniclers. By all accounts, his campaigns were a success, yet the fighting continued until the 7th century. The Seven Kingdoms of Britain were set to be dominated by saxons and other germanic tribes until the arrival of Vikings and their Norman descendants.

Oh Neil.... I used to think the same way about these things. The name atlantic is based on the legend of atlantis, not the other way around. The rising sea levels were just as likely due to the earth wobbling on its axis, the same reason for the ice ages, but since the hothouse period following the K/T event the earths climate has refused to stabilise. The atlantic opened up from the jurassic period onward. Even if the azores plateau was above sea level at any time, I don't believe this accounts for the atlantis legend. How did elephants get there? Please don't say by atlantean ship.... The arguements you give above are standard for those supporting the atlantic landmass theory, which has no substantial proof. The atlantic floor is rising and has been since pangaea pulled apart. There may well be a future landmass in the atlantic, but not in the past. Graham Hancock, Erich Von Daniken, Andrew Tomas - they all want to make a name by discovering some truth about the world that has been hidden or ignored by respectable science. Truth is, they look for coincidence and call it evidence. They look at ancient art and appraise it for modern technology. They see what they want too and misinterpret without question. No. King arthur is based on a story written by a medieval writer based on legend. It was a novel of the thirteenth century, that has become accepted by the masses as semi-historical. The same is happening with Dan Browns Da Vinci Code. Or the Holy Grail? What a wild goose chase that is. In this case, the grail never existed at all. It was first mentioned by a medieval writer named Chierten Des Troyes who wrote an arthurian tale called Percival - and he never actually finished it, dropping dead somewhat inconventiently. Later writers added their own endings to the tale and the original purpose of the grail was lost, replaced by a christianised plot about the last supper. Arthur was a real person - he's mentioned in dark age writings - but probably wasn't a king, more likely a warlord defending against saxon aggression. The possibility of an individual hero from seperate real people doesn't work for me. It happens the other way around. An individual does something, gets remembered, then his story grows and becomes romanticised out of proportion. The legend of atlantis is compelling but then it was intended to be from the start. Starting with a legend then trying to prove it against all odds isn't good history/archaeology, because you become blinded to the evidence that disproves it. I'm not saying there weren't any civilisations we're not aware of in distant ancient times, but that I don't think they were as succesful as later ones nor as expansive as plato claims.

I promised I'd find this reference, so here it is....

The archaeological record supports this statement absolutely, at least with respect to Western Europe. In 400, ordinary people lived under tiled roofs, had a varied selection of pottery vessels suited to multiple functions, had access to luxury products made some distance away, and access to imported wines. A hundred years later they were living under thatch, cooked, ate and drank from basic round pots, had virtually no luxury items unless very rich and drank beer or mead. So they lived in less grand homes. But what about the quality of life? There's more to that than luxury items, which most people couldn't afford anyway even during the pax romana. As I mentioned, the dark ages might have been a nightmare for some regions but then some people might have said the same thing during the height of the roman empire. This was also the period that saw the rise of islam and its conquest of north africa and spain. They were supportive of learning and culture if I remember right. The Byzantines were still there and doing ok. I really don't believe the vikings thought the dark ages were a nightmare either. Which incidentially brings me to the point about dark age technology. Viking longships. Hey, its a start, ok? Dark architecture? Whats wrong with thatched huts? Can you make one? What about moorish palaces, what about byzantine art and literature, not to mention islamic writings. To call the dark age a nightmare is a gross misunderstanding. We call it a dark age because it was a dark time for us.

Thats probaably an obvious choice but no, he wasn't. Caligula was actually popular with the masses, and despite his reported behaviour, didn't ruin the empire. Be careful, because his 'madness' is more likely the result of a cruel sense of humour and absolutely no self restraint. What about Elagabulus? A 14 year old transvestite who wanted to pursue his orgies and wierd rituals whilst his mum ran affairs of state. Or Commodus, who entered the arena as a gladiator hundreds of times and whose opponents were only allwed wooden swords. Perhaps Didius Julianus, who bought the throne from the praetorians and died three months later begging for his life despised by everyone. What about Caracalla? He murdered his brother in front of his mother and conducted a nasty purge in Alexandria because of some alleged comment. Constantine perhaps? Although called the Great by christians, he remained a pagan until his deathbed, tried to get a relation worshipped as jesus, and told some real whoppers to his soldiers and public. There are other examples of bad emperors that I haven't thought of, but I'm sure with a little reading you'll discover just how many of them were pretty awful people.

Oh yes. The dreaded Atlantis. Trouble is, the legended city has been placed at just about every point on the earths globe in an attempt to fit in with plato's description. I think thats wrong. Plato originally got the story from Solon, who heard it from egyptian priests. Plato used the story for a morality tale and his version of the city is deliberately exaggerated to emphasise the fall of a great civilisation. In no way can you take his description absolutely literally. There was an interesting report last year about someone who was surveying the mediterranean between cyprus and israel, where undersea rock formations apparently resemble plato's description. This is not entirely impossible. The northward movement of the african tectonic plate has blocked the straits of gibraltar at least once, and perhaps as many as ten times in prehistory. Each time the med has evaporated and become a huge salt desert valley. Eventually of course the dam breaks and the sea floods back in, with a wave moving at an estimated 400mph and filling the sea again over the course of a century. What a waterfall that would have made! So there is a remote possibility that people lived down there - but its a hot salty desert. A great city state, with verdant pastures and all manner of wild beasts? It just doesn't fit the facts. As for myself, I 've come to the conclusion that the minoans were antlanteans. The explosion of Santorini is probably the most likely cause of the legend. During an eruption of the volcanic cone in the island centre, sea water got into the fissure after an earthquake. This causes a massive explosion, like krakatoa in the nineteenth century. The coastal cities and facilities of the minoans were inundated by a truly awesome tidal wave resulting from it, and their culture devolves into cannabalistic survivors. But - there is a tantalising picture somewhere that shows an ancient city on a conical mountain rising out of a sheltered bay. My guess is that Atlantis may well have existed, as an important city in the minoan state, and that it stood on the volcanic cone at Santorini. Which is why we can't find it because its now spread over the mediterranean! Its also why Plato made his wild story about it - there was nothing to see and describe for real. So he decided to write about it 'beyond the pillars of hercules', way out there in unexplored earth. As for the tales of widom and ancient mystical science far exceeding our own.... yeah right....

The term Dark Age is partly a reflection of the importance of roman culture in our history, since the romans somewhat arrogantly assumed that theirs was better than everyone elses. Now, that was fine until the reign of Honorius. In AD410 he received an embassy from Britain begging for military support - The Groan of the Britains. He refused, and from that point the britons were on their own. They attempted to retain some semblance of romanic life despite the incursions of foreigners (the period from where the legend of King Arthur springs). Archaeology shows that many roman habitations are becoming abandoned at this time, as romano-celts either choose or are forced to assume a more simple/celtic lifestyle. The old roman order had collapsed without external direction leaving communities to struggle on. What was left was under pressure from the foreigners who were expanding across britain piecemeal, colonising and raiding. On the one hand, the period is no longer 'under the light' of roman culture, whilst on the other fewer historical records survive from this period making a 'dark hole' in history. The locals at the time may well have regarded themselves living in a 'dark age', now that the golden age of roman power was past. In fact, the dark ages were no more ignorant any other period nor was it any more savage. It was a chaotic violent time however in which britain was undergoing political and demographic change. Many of these statements can also be applied to mainland europe since the collapse of the west in AD476. The roman empire had changed since its glory days and was no longer the unified culture of old nor one that lived by the same standards. Therefore the term 'Dark Age' is something of a misnomer. What is strange about this period is that the remainder of the roman empire, the Byzantines, seem to fade away from peoples conciousness as something too distant when they had much more immediate problems to face, yet the byzantines maintained a sophisticated city state for centuries.

The name will probably come from before the Danelaw existed.There was Danish settlemets all over Britain Hundreds of years before the Danelaw came about.Same goes for the Saxon's/Angles/Jutes who came over,there was no sudden urge to migrate and invade it happened over hundreds of years. Yes, that would make sense. Studying the ordnance survey map of that hill there are plenty of anglo-saxon names surviving and its clear they had danish neighbours at one point. Goatacre is medieval, but Tockenham and Lyneham are obviously saxon. Nearby Littlecott is too. Bradenstoke (where the medieval abbey stood) isn't a name I recognise. Does the suffix Stoke mean anything to anyone?

I really don't see much cultural evolution at all. Roman culture changed rapidly. An end to the austere life expected of a roman, the institutionalisation of public entertainment, the autocracies, the lowering of public morality, and the beginning of the inward looking empire that bought and brought the outside world toward it. It really was more of a revolution, but one that was bound to happen at some point, because you get the impression that roman society was building up pressure for a change from the social wars onward.