What Was Constantine Thinking?

[Leingod]

Bought the Book of Sires a few days ago, been poring over it since, definitely a lot of fun. I like most of the changes or elaborations it's made on the lore, and also I generally find Vortigern pretty interesting when you read between the lines and notice that a lot of his initial policies were carried forward by the Pendragons (which in earlier books were usually attributed to the Pendragons themselves, and is something I could see happening in-universe over time, as no one wants to associate good ideas with a hated tyrant, so it's a nice touch).

But it also raised a question: What was Constantine (III) thinking in regards to the succession? He was appointed High King in 415, presumably as an adult. He married a daughter of Coel Hen immediately after, and eight years later she gives birth to Constans, his heir apparent... who Constantine then hands over to a monastery in Winchester. Then Constans does basically the same thing with both Aurelius Ambrosius ten years later and Uther three years after that. And apparently by the time of his death 25 years into his reign Constans is still at that monastery.

What did Constantine think would happen when he died? He doesn't seem to have done anything to prepare any of his sons for becoming rulers, he seems to have just thrown them to the monks and then forgotten they existed. Constans was a bookish boy with no experience and no real credit with the people of Britain outside of his lineage, and it took fast talking from Vortigern, the most powerful king in Cambria, just to get him the crown of Logres, let alone Britain.

It would be one thing if Constantine just didn't want the High Kingship to become hereditary, or wanted someone else to rule other than his sons... but there's no indication that Constantine did anything at all with regards to succession. If he had anyone or any alternate method in mind, it was never brought up in the timelines. 25 years of rule, and in all that time he never did anything to make sure things wouldn't go to pot the moment he was gone?

I'm trying to wrap my brain around this, because I'd love to be able to have vignettes or flashbacks or anecdotes far back in the past during campaigns, and I'd like to have some idea of how to portray major actors and their decisions, but Constantine is just baffling me with how little effort he seems to have invested in securing his legacy.

Edited April 21, 2019 by Leingod

[Ravian]

I mean theoretically Monasteries can be a fair option to get your kid educated, after all monks are some of the most educated people around. The issue of course is that Constans seems to have taken to the monastic environment too well, and his father never took him out of that monastery, whereas Aurelius and Uther managed to get a solid military education during their flight to Brittany.

It's possible that Contantine overestimated how effectively he could craft a stable kingdom during his reign, possibly naively viewing that he could create some New Rome or something. With that mindset, he possibly considered that it would be more effective for his heir to be educated and intelligent enough to maintain the kingdom after he forged it through war and politics. Unfortunately he ended up just creating a bookworm and Vortigern saw that he was severely unready for the practical realities of politics.

[Atgxtg]

My pet theory was that there was something wrong with Constans (the eldest son). 

I figured Constatin got married and eight years later he has a son. The son is put into the care of the church, to be raised until he is ready to be squired, but there was something wrong with the boy. Something that made him suitable as an heir. Maybe he had some sort of mental defect, or a physical one or other health issue. Perhaps he was prone to seizure or something? Perhaps a combination of things. Whatever it was, it was something that would make him unsuitable to be a King, if it were known -especially in the British Isles, where the king was considered to have a symbolic tie with the land and any defects in the king would be reflected in the land. 

Anyway, when Aurelius is born ten years later, and then Uther in 436,  Constaintin knew he has two other sons, and so had Constans become a monk. Probably with some cover story about how devout he is and so forth. This gets him out of the picture, and lets the church take care of him, with the idea that Aurelius would be the heir. The other sons might have been raised by the church just in case one of them had the same "defect" that Constans had. 

Then Constatin is murdered and Vortigern uses his influence to had Constans made king. Now those who knew the boy was unfit were probably sworn to reveal it, and the general public (and probably most of the nobles) were unaware that Constans was unfit and so saw no problem wit the situation. Vortigern then is able to do pretty much whatever he wanted as, according to the sources , Costains was just happy to be the king and didn't  want to be bothered with the running of the kingdom.

I suspect Aurelius and Uther would have been squired off to someone, probably King Aldren in Brittany, once they were the right age, but Constantin died before it got to that point, and then Constans as well. Remember Aurelius was only around 10 years old when Vortgern took over, and wouldn't be ready to become a squire for several more years.

Edited April 21, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Cornelius]

It may have been a difference in world view and what the virtues of a good king or general are:

In the Roman eye a good king is an educated mind, screwed in the political arena of the forum. Its not his prowes in combat but his strategic mind that wins the day. Strategy is learned by learning from the great generals of old. Even Julius Ceasar used mostly his charisma and strategic mind, while he left the execution of his plans to his subordinates. 

In the Cymru (and especially the Pict and Saxon) eye a good king is a man of action. He is strong and his prowes in combat wins the day. Strategy comes through experience and thus you need to go through the ranks to become a great general.Train your sword arm first, and through experience become a good general.

So for a Roman to make a great general was to get your child educated. And the best educated men are the monks. So it wasn't that odd to send your child to them to be educated. It is also the rerason why his Pict bodyguards feel it is a bad general (he has no experience).

[Morien]

One thing to keep in mind is that this is before knighthood really got codified: a knight is just a name for a noble warrior at this stage, not a heavy cavalryman. If Constantin was thinking more in terms of a Roman cursus honorum, then around 20, you'd start making the young noblemen participate in wars as military tribunes. It might be that he was thinking the same even for Constans; it is likely that Constans never took the vows as a monk, since otherwise it could have been a big mess getting him free of those vows in order to serve a king, instead. Remember, Constantin got murdered; by all accounts he was a healthy man still, with years, decades more to go.

Whether Constans was truly suffering from some fault as Atgxtg suggests is up to the GM. I think it was more of a personality thing; SIRES implies that Constans starts out reluctant and bookish, but is growing into his role as a King, which is why Vortigern decides to get rid of him, too. Of course, as a 18 year old youth raised in a monastery, Constans would not be a war leader by any means, but assuming that the tribal leaders would stay loyal, this is not a problem, he'd have plenty of generals even related to him by blood: Vortigern and his sons, and Cunedda and his family, to begin with.

So yes, I am very much agreeing that the reason the sons were fostered/raised by churchmen & monks is to ensure that they have the best possible education whilst growing up. This does NOT mean that Constantin intended them all to become monks or churchmen! I would expect that Constantin would have let Constans remain in the monastery and actually become a monk, once Aurelius and Uther would grow up. And I also expect that Constantin would probably have fostered Aurelius and Uther out to different tribal nobles to gain more of a grounding in warfare even at an earlier age. So despite what I said in the beginning, I do think that Constantin was kinda writing Constans off as a man who would never be happy as a king and much happier as a monk, but I think he would have resisted Constans taking the vows until he had his two spares ready to step up to the plate.

[Hzark10]

7 hours ago, Leingod said:

Bought the Book of Sires a few days ago, been poring over it since, definitely a lot of fun. I like most of the changes or elaborations it's made on the lore, and also I generally find Vortigern pretty interesting when you read between the lines and notice that a lot of his initial policies were carried forward by the Pendragons (which in earlier books were usually attributed to the Pendragons themselves, and is something I could see happening in-universe over time, as no one wants to associate good ideas with a hated tyrant, so it's a nice touch).

But it also raised a question: What was Constantine (III) thinking in regards to the succession?

Thanks, and hope you find a lot of things that will give you more thought as you go through it. 

In regards to Constans, Greg never gave me clear understanding of what he thought, but he directed me towards certain sources to ensure I had them when writing. You must remember also, the Constantin was not the first choice for Kingship. It was first offered to King Aldronius of Brittany who defered it to his younger brother. So, this may also be in Constantin's thinking - it is not necessarily first born who would make the best king.

Mull over that for a few...

[Khanwulf]

The other piece of information, danced around by Atgxtg in his comment, is that Vortigern succeeded in bending the ears of the Pictish bodyguard to Constans such that they thought they and everyone else would be better off with Constans dead and Vortigern in charge. 

Now Picts are not alien to the concept of the oath, or they would not have been selected as bodyguards, so there must have been some foundation for them--in close proximity to Constans--to conclude that he did not fit at least their view of the king, and Vortigern was better. It had to be subtle enough of a manipulation, as well, that Vortigern could act all shocked afterwards and quickly have the treacherous Picts executed. The flight of Ambrosius and Uther could have been prudence by their caretaker more than necessity ahead of Vortigern's blades--we don't know for sure.

This assumes, by the way, that Vortigern actually did attempt to manipulate the Picts toward his ends (which is a given in most accounts, but need not be in your KAP). He could have simply been a good chancellor and expressed the king's generosity toward the bodyguards, only to be misunderstood as they hatched their own plot. 

One thing we have to acknowledge from the sources is that Ambrosius had very good PR. He succeeded in smearing Vortigern's name so thoroughly ahead of his return to Britain that we still do not know what the man was actually named! Only in areas that look like Vortigern's ancestral lands do we see alternate treatments that hold him up as a competent and wise leader. Yet: he was selected as the High King by the other nobles, and if they truly thought him weak or smarmy they would have thrust themselves (or Cunedda) forward as alternative candidates.

So... there is a LOT that a GM can do to craft their picture of these characters. YPWV.

 

--Khanwulf

[Leingod]

7 hours ago, Khanwulf said:

The other piece of information, danced around by Atgxtg in his comment, is that Vortigern succeeded in bending the ears of the Pictish bodyguard to Constans such that they thought they and everyone else would be better off with Constans dead and Vortigern in charge. 

That's actually explained in the book (because one of the possibiities is a Jagent Pict, whose grandfather may actually be one of said bodyguards): Vortigern is the one who offers two Pictish tribes land in Jagent (which has been more or less abandoned by the native Durotriges) in exchange for protecting the area from Irish raiders. Vortigern provided them with plenty of tools, livestock and grains on top of that, free of charge, and essentially made himself out to be "a good friend to the Picts."

A surviving bodyguard (possibly your ancestor or relative) that what happened with the assassination: “While drunk with wine, we were duped by Vortigern thinking the king was forcing him into a position way below his station. Since we thought he was a noble man and our friend, in our passion and drunkenness we killed the king. But then he turned on us and had everyone killed before they could explain themselves! He is no friend to the Picts!”

And in the Cambrian timeline, your grandfather might be one of Vortigern's bodyguards, where he will witness Vortigern wining and dining the Picts for over a year and will overhear them expressing regrets that Constans no longer values his counsel and that he fears he might be expelled from court any day now. Said bodyguard grandfather (the Cambrian one) can also be sent by Vortigern to "rescue" Aurelius and Uther from "foreign villains" who have "kidnapped" them, who are of course the knights of King Aldronius of Brittany, who suspects a murder and wants to save his two remaining nephews.

So while you certainly can portray Vortigern as (at least early on) a good chancellor and friend of Constantine who really does try to be a good regent for young Constans in your own campaigns (and it's certainly an interesting interpretation to take), the default assumption is definitely that Vortigern was always a schemer hungry for the throne. But a schemer who, as it happened, actually wasn't doing too bad a job of it until Hengest and Rowena come into the picture and play him like a fiddle. The early years do a lot to establish him as a great general and diplomat, and his administrative reforms are so useful that Aurelius Ambrosius chooses to add to them rather than try to dismantle them. I think Vortigern makes for a more interesting contrast to the line of the Pendragons when you keep him as a not particularly good person who nonetheless was able to rule as a good king for a while.

[Atgxtg]

The HRB is somewhat interesting in how it set it up. basically Vortigern acts sympathetic towards the bodyguards and says that if he were the king he would treat them better than Constans did. So the bodyguards got together and decided to kill Constans and make Vortigern king so he could do so. But the first thing Vorigern does is have the guard executed. This gets followed by a Pict uprising in the north. 

So there is enough wiggle room to interpret Vorigern's actions. In fact the British leaders seem to be split on the subject. Some believed that Vortigern was behind it all, and other thought that he was just being opportunistic. He even seems to start off as a competent leader. It's not until later when he starts sleeping with his own daughter and then marries Rowena and lets Hengest get away with too much when his reputation really drops.  

One of the things in Vortigern's favor as far as his not being behind the murder plot is that he fails to act to secure the other two princes. If he had planned for the assassination, then you would expect him to get to the other two children in order to secure his grip on the throne. But maybe he had a plan, but something went wrong.

One version of the tale I've been trying to dig up more info on is the supposed "canal escape" of the two princes. from one of Aldroen's villas in Britiain It also seems that a large villa in Dover (which had canals) burned down at around that time. So it's possible that Vortigern had made arrangements for some sort of "accidental fire" to kill off the princes, but somebody managed to escape through some secret entrance to the canals, and Vortigern didn't realize the princes had survived until they were safely in Brittany.

 

 

[Leingod]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

The HRB is somewhat interesting in how it set it up. basically Vortigern acts sympathetic towards the bodyguards and says that if he were the king he would treat them better than Constans did. So the bodyguards got together and decided to kill Constans and make Vortigern king so he could do so. But the first thing Vorigern does is have the guard executed. This gets followed by a Pict uprising in the north. 

So there is enough wiggle room to interpret Vorigern's actions. In fact the British leaders seem to be split on the subject. Some believed that Vortigern was behind it all, and other thought that he was just being opportunistic. He even seems to start off as a competent leader. It's not until later when he starts sleeping with his own daughter and then marries Rowena and lets Hengest get away with too much when his reputation really drops.  

One of the things in Vortigern's favor as far as his not being behind the murder plot is that he fails to act to secure the other two princes. If he had planned for the assassination, then you would expect him to get to the other two children in order to secure his grip on the throne. But maybe he had a plan, but something went wrong.

One version of the tale I've been trying to dig up more info on is the supposed "canal escape" of the two princes. from one of Aldroen's villas in Britiain It also seems that a large villa in Dover (which had canals) burned down at around that time. So it's possible that Vortigern had made arrangements for some sort of "accidental fire" to kill off the princes, but somebody managed to escape through some secret entrance to the canals, and Vortigern didn't realize the princes had survived until they were safely in Brittany.

 

 

It's interesting how different that is from what's in the Book of Sires, which includes a lot of information from the HRB (though it messes with the timelines to get it to fit). Piecing together all the different bits of information your ancestors could potentially have/witness in the Book of Sires (I like that no one has the complete picture), it appears to be:

1. Vortigern has King Constantin assassinated by a Pict hired from the North (who may be a Pictish knight's ancestor). A Cambrian knight's ancestor who is Vortigern's bodyguard might even see the Pict leaving the scene of the crime before the body is discovered, but his later testimony is ignored because...
2. A knight of the Atrebates (i.e. a Silchesterman) is found standing with a dumbfounded expression over the High King's body with a dagger in hand when Vortigern and his guards stumble upon the scene. Likely capitalizing on the opportunity to have a scapegoat to avoid inconvenient questions, Vortigern immediately proclaims that this knight killed the king, and the Atrebates knight (potentially a Silchester knight's ancestor) is killed before he can speak a word in his defense, with the first knight to do so being rewarded with the "murderer's" lands by Vortigen for avenging the king's death.
3. After barbarians take the death of Constantin as a good opportunity to go raiding, Vortigern heads to London, where he convinces the reluctant Constans to take up his father's crown. The Supreme Collegium are also called to gather, but the warfare going on prevents them from meeting until next year, so Vortigern marches an army to Cambria to settle that himself, where he convinces the Deceangli and Cornovii to join him in presenting an ultimatum to the Irish of Estregales for reparation for their raids. King Aldronius sends a force of knights to serve as bodyguards for all three of his nephews.
4. Next year, King Mor of the Brigantes tries to contest Constans' claim to the high kingship, arguing that Britain needs a warrior king. Vortigern debates the strength of arms versus the strength of words (using his own use of "diplomacy" to make peace in Cambria previously), and convinces the majority to vote for Constans. "Constans is a young, bookish type: learned in laws and customs, but not in governing."
5. A Cambrian bodyguard to Vortigern will be present when Vortigern suggests Picts as bodyguards, in case there are any disloyal vassals like the Atrebates knight who killed his father. Constans thanks his uncle for looking out for him and asks him to see to it. These replace the Breton knights, who are dismissed from service as Constans' bodyguards by Vortigern. Reports of his nephew being guarded by Picts makes Adronius worried.
6. The next year, as I detailed above, Vortigern - who has been wining and dining the Pictish bodyguards and playing himself as a good friend to the Picts in Jagent that he invited over from Caledonia - gets them drunk, drops some hints, and then Constans is killed. A Breton knight's ancestor may be sent as part of a delegation to Constans prior to this, and will notice that Constans is beginning to assert himself more. The Picts are then immediately turned on by Vortigern, who has them all rounded up and killed before they can defend themselves. A surviving bodyguard relates this to the Picts in Jagent, who realize Vortigern is a false friend - though some rightly point out that they did still kill the king, and it's not like they were ordered or anything, so some of them remain loyalists.
7. Shortly after Constans' death, Vortigern tells his bodyguards that the princes have been "kidnapped" by "foreign villains" and orders them to get them back and take them to safety (likely so Vortigern can keep them under lock and key and/or arrange another unfortunate "accident" down the line). These kidnappers are actually knights from Brittany sent by King Aldronius (who suffered a stroke and is on his deathbed from news of Constans' death) to take them to Brittany for their safety, as he now believes Vortigern is plotting against them.
8. The raids from the Picts in Caledonia are actually unrelated to this - after all, it's not their tribesmen - and is partly caused by the King of the Brigantes, pissed off that he's been passed over as High King and likely will be again (since Logres and Cambria are now in Vortigern's pocket and he thus has most of the seats on the Supreme Collegium as his vassals), makes an alliance with the Picts to help them in their invasion. Some of the Picts of Jagent turn against the Britons (often by pretending to be Caledonian Picts in their raids) to get revenge for years of raids by Britons who either see all Picts as the same or want revenge for Constans' death.

[Hzark10]

Spoilsport.... ;)

And yes, the idea that no one has the complete picture is on purpose. 

You missed at least one of the plot twists, but I am glad you like what you found so far.  And timing is everything as you continue to find out.

[Hzark10]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

One version of the tale I've been trying to dig up more info on is the supposed "canal escape" of the two princes. from one of Aldroen's villas in Britiain It also seems that a large villa in Dover (which had canals) burned down at around that time. So it's possible that Vortigern had made arrangements for some sort of "accidental fire" to kill off the princes, but somebody managed to escape through some secret entrance to the canals, and Vortigern didn't realize the princes had survived until they were safely in Brittany.

And wouldn't that make a wonderful scenario for your PKs, to try to get the real princes out before the usurper manages to kill them off.  

Enough of real history survives that make scenarios fun to create.  But, that is only if you are playing in a campaign that far back. If not, then it is just fun to know what portion your ancestor did or did not do.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

And wouldn't that make a wonderful scenario for your PKs, to try to get the real princes out before the usurper manages to kill them off.  

BINGO! I had something in the works with the PKs escaping with the Princes from London, but the canal escape seems to much better!

My current theory is for a particular reoccurring wine merchant to show up with a boat full of wine, which he transported up through the canal (water is the easiest way to move heavy loads) to a door in the buttery. The PKs (or one of the NPCs at the villa if the PKS don't think of it first) decide to sneak the  princes out through the canals, and Vortigern's flunkies burn the villa down, and think everyone died because no one came out the door. 

2 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Enough of real history survives that make scenarios fun to create.  But, that is only if you are playing in a campaign that far back. If not, then it is just fun to know what portion your ancestor did or did not do.

Mostly. But as far as the normal timeline goes, it's possible than a PKs ancestor would be remembered by Aurelius and/or Uther for their part in the matter, and be praised for it, leading to more glory for them and their decedents, and a PK might be given a little more attention or trust by Aurelius or Uther because of it.  The PK is just some random knight, but the son of the man who saved their lives when they were young. So it could be more than just flavor text and glory. 

There is also a battle between Aurelius and Vortigern that take place in Salisbury that might be worth noting too, for similar reasons.

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, Leingod said:

It's interesting how different that is from what's in the Book of Sires, which includes a lot of information from the HRB (though it messes with the timelines to get it to fit). Piecing together all the different bits of information your ancestors could potentially have/witness in the Book of Sires (I like that no one has the complete picture),

Thats partially because the various sources contradict each other in several places. For example some sources have Constantin rein for 10 years, with Vortigern taking over in around 427-429 while others have Vortigern taking over later. And many other events are linked to Vortigern's reign, which can mean a 15 year"shift " or so in the established dates. 

One of the things that I really like about SIRES is that it sorts out one official version of the timeline instead of us having to try and reconcile the various versions. 

Quote

 

it appears to be:

1. Vortigern has King Constantin assassinated by a Pict hired from the North (who may be a Pictish knight's ancestor). A Cambrian knight's ancestor who is Vortigern's bodyguard might even see the Pict leaving the scene of the crime before the body is discovered, but his later testimony is ignored because...

I suspect that SIRES changed that because it seemed really stupid for Constans to have Pict bodyguards if a Pict bodyguard murdered his father. It was one of the things in the HRB that had me wonder just how stupid everyone else would have to be to allow that. The more roundabout approach, fallguy or not makes more sense.

As to the princes escape, while SIRES gives credit to Aldroen for the rescue, the HRB give credit to the people responsible for raising the princes. Apparently the put 2+2 together and decided not to risk it. But, the Archbishop of London, in whose care the princes were in,  (conveniently) died before Constans was made High King, although it this was part of a plot, or just a coincidence remains to be seen. One of the reason why I suspect something was wrong with Constans was that, according to the HRB, none of the clergy will willing to perform the coronation ceremony. 

Another thing mentioned in the HRBe things that is mentioned in that most of the older nobles died off at around the same time. Now I doubt Vortigern could have eliminated that many nobles without being caught out (it he could do that, he could have gotten to the princes), but there seems to have been an outbreak of plague at about that time.I suspect that Vortigern might have originally been loyal, but when all the older noblemen started to die off he saw an opportunity. 

Of course, the cool thing is, we do not need to really know what actually happened and just what Vortigern's plans really were and what was just dumb luck, we just need to know what everybody thinks happened.  Which gives us all sorts of room for gossip and intrigue. 

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Atgxtg