Talk:Sub-Roman Britain

Map

I've removed the map as the information it contains does not seem to be based on any reliable sources. Though there are occasional references to some of the kingdoms on the map in contemporary sources (such as those kingdoms mentioned in Gildas), there is little to locate them geographically, and certainly not to start drawing a complex network of borders on a map. Other kingdoms on the map seem to be inferred from later or earlier political entities, assuming that they existed in 500. As with many things on this period, great unknowns and grey areas are regularly glossed over in an attempt to give a coherent picture that can not be substantiated by the source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.219.157 (talk • contribs)

Why "sub" Roman?

If I didn't know anything about the subject, I would assume that "sub-Roman Britain" meant Britain immediately before the Romans came (i.e. stratigraphically below it), rather than immediately after they left. According to the lede, it is derived from the inferior-relative-to-Roman pottery of the era, but this is unsourced and isn't expanded on in the rest of the article. Iapetus (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If you take a look at the sources, further reading and external links, you'll see that a number of them use the term. That's why we do. Having said that, a lot of sources call it "post-Roman", and there's a case for changing the title. Not sure how good it is though. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The extremely unconventional name for this period needs to be explained in the article, not buried in references. It's immediately, intuitively a misnomer for virtually all readers new to the subject and needs clarification. There's not just a good case for using "post-Roman"; there's no good case for not switching when the other term's prominence in academic literature is almost entirely the consequence of a single paper by a single scholar. Post-Roman is more commonly used and makes more intuitive sense. There's no reason to keep the current article title or wording. 2600:4040:3114:EE00:D139:E07F:5791:D14C (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

agreed, the article has a section to explain the terms, but then doesn't, and the unsourced explanation from 2018 that is mentioned here isn't there any more, so now there is no indication where the term comes from at all. It certainly seems like an outdated term and post-Roman is more commonly used now, especially outside archaeology. — jonas (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The OED defines sub-Roman as "Designating a period occuring immediately after the Roman period, and still retaining characteristics of that time; or relating to, or dating from such a period". It says that the first time the term was used was in the early 1930s, it cites "Man: A Monthly Record Of Anthropological Science. Vol.32 Article 252" quoting from T. C. Lethbridge's paper taken from "Further excavation on the Bran Ditch" (Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 32 p.55 1932). Historians such as Christopher Snyder suggest that the term sub-Roman "is a label applied by specialists to Britannia in the fifth and sixth centuries." Sub-Roman Britons were a hybrid of Roman, Celtic and Christian cultures who occupied a specific part of Britain during a specific time period. Using the term post-Roman seems to apply to everything after the Romans eg: the Anglo-Saxons and Normans?Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

"St. Thaddaeus is described as visiting a Roman villa at Chepstow..."

This is unsourced, and I think is based on a misunderstanding somewhere along the line. St Tathan, also known as Tatheus, is credited with founding a church at the former Roman town of Caerwent, about 5 miles from Chepstow - but was unconnected with St Thaddaeus. Can anyone clarify this statement (added by a long-departed editor back in 2007), or should it simply be deleted? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, this Victorian Book of Saints references St “Tathai’s” (or “Tathaeus”) feast day “at Chepstow”. One of the name variants given for this saint is “Thaddaeus”. That seems to be St Tathan that’s being referenced - the name variant might be the basis of the confusion. It’s obviously not St. Thaddeus i.e. Jude the Apostle. It’s probably best to delete that sentence - not sure what it’s adding to a section that’s about sources anyway. DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Stumbled across this more modern source that explicitly mentions “St Tatheus” visting the Chepstow villa. It also references Cuthbert’s visit to Carlisle. Could be used as a citation for examples of how saints lives texts provided insights on sub-Roman Britain - in afact I’ve gone ahead and added it and updated the text. DeCausa (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - though the modern source states "near" Chepstow, rather than "at" Chepstow. "Near" could refer to Venta Silurum at Caerwent. There is no firm archaeological evidence of a Roman villa "at" Chepstow - though of course it is possible that one or more existed. It would be good to find the origin of the "tale", apparently cited in Morris's Age of Arthur. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The only primary source on Tatheus I’ve seen referenced is a 12th century Vita. But if the ‘tale’ came from that it’s a little dubious and late for modern scholars to use as a source for Sub-Roman Britain. Perhaps there’s something else. Maybe someone has access to Age of Arthur (it’s not on Google Books.) DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've ordered it - but I don't think it's now seen as a very reliable source, is it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It’s a bit out of date I think - but I would have thought a straightforward recounting of a story from a ms. would be ok though. In the Tathan article there’s a link to a 19th century translation of the Life of St Tathan but I couldn’t see anything about the visit in it. DeCausa (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Morris' The Age of Arthur refers to this place as "probably Portskewett" - which makes perfect sense, as Portskewett (4 miles from Chepstow, 2 miles from Caerwent) was a Roman and post-Roman settlement and port of some significance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, good find. Does Morris give a source for the story? The whole article needs quite a bit of improvement - little bit at a time I suppose… DeCausa (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Vita Tathei. That's the sum total of my knowledge on this! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I would only use Morris to find a source we can check. That book got torn apart. John Morris (historian). Doug Weller talk 15:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s actually sourced to Nowell Myres who cites Morris. I actually had a look at a translation of the Vita previously and couldn’t find the story in it. I could well have missed it but maybe the whole thing is all a bit…weak. DeCausa (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That's useless then. I don't trust Morris. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I didn’t realise it was as bad as that. He wouldn’t even be trusted to accurately quote a story from a manuscript (Vita Tathei)? DeCausa (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I can send you a Jstor review if you don't have access. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That’s ok. I’m sure you’re right. DeCausa (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You can see this online.. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, might some of the criticisms of Morris book be mentioned in the article? Considering its cited multiple times without any disclaimer. For some reason only scholarship on migrations is really discussed as of yet. — jonas (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is the original story in translation, pp.17-18. "[They came] unto Britain, to wit to the Severn. At the last, being come through all the length of the strait they drew nigh unto Gwent and put in at a haven called after the name of the people ["i.e. some such name as portus Guentonie, the haven of Gwent"] ....Now a certain rich man who dwelt in that region, having a bath made ready for him (for such was his wont every Saturday), saw them drawing nigh, weary by reason of their journeying by land and sea.....". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We use the book at lot as a source. At least sometimes with criticism. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Ghmyrtle. But it does leave a question mark for this article. On what basis is this “a dilapidated Roman villa”? And on what basis is this evidence of continuation of a late Roman life-style into the sub-Roman period? All it says is there was a rich man who had a bath every Saturday. It doesn’t mention plumbing, a bath-house or a villa built in the Roman period whether dilapidated or not. (It could have been water warmed in a bucket over an open fire.) Is having a weekly bath a notable insight into sub-Roman Britain? Not sure. I don’t know, but it does look like Thomas over-reached wth this. Also, how does Thomas locate it to Portskewett? DeCausa (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Sub-Roman Britain includes the text we’ve been discussing here. The historical context section at History of Anglo-Saxon England looks problematic. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Venta Silurum says he founded a monastery there. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of the text in that sentence (including the "dilapidated Roman villa") is sourced to Myers here. He in turn cites Morris, who only refers (in the context of the 6th century) to "the owner of another estate, near Chepstow, [who] kept the baths of his villa in repair...". (Who is "Thomas" by the way?) There are other sources providing information (and speculation) about post-Roman settlement at Caerwent and nearby Portskewett - my initial interest was about what was meant by "near Chepstow", but I surmise that that was written by someone who does not live in the area ("near" is a very subjective term). Almost all of this article lacks reliable sources - at least that sentence now has citations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, by Thomas I meant Morris! Not sure how i confused myself there. Yes, the citation is to Myers who in turn relies on Morris. Doug Weller points out that Morris (and any citation to Morris) is “useless” because his reputation has collapsed, unless one can check Morris’s source. Morris’s source is the Vita which you linked to. But that text doesn't reference any Roman villa at all. Morris appears to have misused his source, which seems consistent with his reputation. Based on that there’s a good case for taking it out of the article, even if much of the article is unsourced anyway. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This says Caradog gave Tathan Caerwent. I'm not convinced it's an rs. Tathan's article says he was an abbot of Caerwent based on a book by Fred Hando which seems a dubious source. As does the major source for the article, William Jenkins Rees about whom the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says "y. The preparation of the society's edition of the ‘Liber Landavensis,’ at first entrusted to his nephew, Rice Rees [q. v.], was placed in his hands in 1839, and the book appeared in 1840. In 1853 Rees also edited for the society their collection of ‘Lives of the Cambro-British Saints’ (text and English translation). In neither case was the work, in the judgment of modern scholars, executed with due care and intelligence".. What a mess. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in any sense. But it occurs to me that a great deal of what sources - all sources - say about this period is based on interpretation of ancient writings that are capable of multiple explanations. Without completely rewriting articles like this one, or completely excluding all sources that some academics claim to be of dubious reliability, is anyone willing to highlight what is known to be true based on the most reliable modern analysis, and differentiate it by flagging up more contentious statements by contested writers? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Should this article be merged away or reduced?

It is very hard to maintain, build or improve such a forest of highly overlapping articles about Dark Ages Britain. In fact it is hard to even find all the articles. This one is not in good condition, and that makes sense. I see it has 2 sections with almost the same title. We also have articles with highly similar coverage: End of Roman rule in Britain and Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. The first overlaps especially with this one. The second overlaps with a section, and to work normally the sections here with main articles should be a summary of the main articles. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

There is now discussion about this on one of the other articles here. I have written there as follows: The settlement period is more or less the same period as the Sub-Roman period. I can see an argument for saying that the focus upon the origins of the Anglo-Saxons can make the article different, but even if we don't merge we should make sure that the articles are "visible" to each other and clearly defined. Overlapping parts can sometimes be shortened, deferring to the other article. What I am seeing in practice is that the topics discussed overlap about 99% so something is wrong for now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This article overlaps more with End of Roman rule in Britain, which could probably be merged into this one. Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain focuses on their settlement of (what is now) England, but this article should be about the whole island, focusing more on the Brittonic kingdoms and the Irish raids and settlement. I agree we should shorten the parts that overlap, and that could be done with Template:Excerpt. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Of course we can re-name articles, and we don't necessarily need to base ourselves one what they are currently mainly about given that there seems to have been limited coordination. But in any case I think if we have an article with Anglo-Saxon settlement in the title then I think it should NOT be about Picts and Scoti? The "Brittonic" kingdoms are of course relevant and sometimes very intertwined with the Anglo-Saxons, but I think it would be odd to have a specific focussed discussion about them on such an article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)