Wallop or how long did Ambrosius live?

Wallop leads to confusion and debate since ages.

Nennius wrote in his Historia Brittonum (AD 825): "And [from? during?] the reign
of Vortigern to the quarrel between Guitolinus and Ambrosius, are twelve years, which is
Guolopum, that is Catgwaloph (Wallop)"
Some authors place the battle of Wallop from the (start of the) reign of Vortigern (whose
family name was probably Guitolinus or Vitalinus!), that is around 437. The original Latin
sentence is confusing and says: during. A error of a copier can not be excluded here, but we
have no proof for it. All to much historians have invoked scribal errors to make their
statement hard. Mentioning both Vortigern and Guitolinus could be coincidental and the
possibility exists that 2 different persons with the same name are mentioned here.

Nennius was the one who stated that the Adventus Saxonum happened in 428, in contrast to
Bede who placed it in 446. We agree with Nennius’ date. It is the most logical one.

If Ambrosius was present both in ± 437 (battle of Wallop, Nennius) and in ± 500 (battle of
Bath as indicated by Gildas) then we have a problem: at Bath, Ambrosius would have been
83 years old, supposing that he was 20 years old at Wallop. But being just 20 and commander
in chief is highly unlikely. Aetius (who won over Attila) was already an army commander
when he was 29 years old and that was exceptionally young. So, taking Aetius as an example,
Ambrosius would have been about 92 years old in Bath, if the battle happened no later than
500 which is far from certain. Average life expectancy in those days was no more than 40
years. Becoming 80 was a great exception, but being older than 80 and leading an army can
be excluded. Army commanders used to move around by horse until the first World War. So,
we can reject the idea that the same Ambrosius was present at Wallop and at Bath. And what
about this Guitolinus-Whittling character?

Well, it’s difficult to tell... Anyhow, Wallop was not mentioned by Gildas nor by Bede, so its
importance must have been negligible... The whole affair could simply have been an failed
attempt of land-grabbing by a greedy local proto-English lord, probably called Whittling, and
a defender called Ambrosius who could have been the father of the son Ambrosius, the victor
at Bath. After all, the upper-class was a very small world in Britain in those days.... and more
Ambrosius are attested around that age. The name must have been highly fashionable for a
while.  The whole battle could have involved 50 men on both sides. Let us not forget that
during the Anglo-Saxon times a group of 120 men was called an army !

The Southwest of Britain had become independent of ‘London’. The lords of the Southwest
Alliance had formed their own council that challenged the legality and authority of ‘London’.
‘London’ had broken with the Roman Empire, hence reason enough to be ‘not legal’. The
Southwest Alliance managed to build their own army, probably a combination of former
Roman elements, including Welshmen and other troops from Brittany (Armorica in Gaul).
Ambrosius Aurelianus was probably present in Wallop, but too young to be the commander
in chief.
Ambrosius would later (around 500) win as commander of the Welsh army the battle
of Bath, stalling the Anglo-Saxons for some 50 years.

Letter to Agitius
 
Gildas mentions a letter, a plea for help, to Agitius, who was at that moment "consul for the
third time". There is a general consensus amongst historians that Aetius was meant. The
career of Aetius, master of Gaul, victor over Attila, is reasonably well attested. He was consul
for the third time in 446. This places the letter in the same year. But not all adds up: Gildas
clearly mentions the letter before the Adventus Saxonum. Gildas gave no dates, but relates
nevertheless events in a chronological order.
Three interpretations are possible:
(1) The classic one: the letter was written in 446. The only unsolved problem is its position
within Gildas’ text. Gildas made some mistakes in his text earlier, but in general his
chronology is good.
(2) Agitius is not Aetius. This places the letter somewhere between 407-428. The question of
course is then: who was the man?
(3) Agitius is Aetius, but Gildas confused consulship with the title magister
militum (commander in chief of the Roman army). Young Aetius was appointed magister
militum in 425. He would become consul in northern Gaul in 444, about 20 years later. The
function of consul was merely an honorific one, and during the Empire, consuls had little
power. A consul could quite simply not decide to send help. The power Aetius had in 446
was not derived from his consulship, but from the fact that he was the magister militum at the
same time.

This makes the following scenario plausible: In 427 a proposal was made in the British senate
to legalize the Anglo-Saxon guards. Some members of the council were opposed, but a
compromise was agreed that at first a request for help would be send to commander
Aetius. This was the last attempt to obtain help from Rome. If he refused, then they would
agree with the proposal for little other possibilities were left.
In 427, Galla Placidia ruled as regent the Empire. At that moment, Flavius Aetius was master
militum for the third year. He had already acquired quite a prestige, hence his exceptional
position for his age (31). He must have had a lot of influence at the imperial court. The fact
that emperor Valentianus was still a child made Aetius the obvious person to address a plea
for help.
Aetius refused to help the British. As soon as his answer was known, early 428, the British
senate voted the legalizing of the Anglo-Saxon guards. The Adventus Saxonum became a
fact.