Roman \"Abandonment\" of Britain: Fact or Fiction?

[Alanus]

I think I just got myself into hot water on the last post to the 5th Century Roman Timeline.:mrgreen:

I stated that Britain was still a Roman province in 470. Am I wrong or right?
A friend of mine, my Legio III commander, also believes something similar and swears the legionary standards remained in Britain until recalled by Emperor Romulus in 476.

I figure this is good for a nice debate. So let's have a go at it.:grin:

PS: no drawn swords allowed, so we can keep it bloodless.:wink:

[Gaius Colletti]

Roman was more or less "abandoned" by Rome in 410 AD, the Emperor, Honorius told them they should seek to their own defenses. Though Britain had been in bad shape for sometime, at least enough for them to elect their own "Emperor" to usurp Honorius in 407, which failed. Romans had lost control of a considerable portion of Britain by 383AD

Perhaps you are thinking of the movie "The Last Legion" in which Romulus goes to Britain after being usurped in 476?

[Alanus]

Roman was more or less "abandoned" by Rome in 410 AD, the Emperor, Honorius told them they should seek to their own defenses. Though Britain had been in bad shape for sometime, at least enough for them to elect their own "Emperor" to usurp Honorius in 407, which failed. Romans had lost control of a considerable portion of Britain by 383AD

There is a difference between "abandoning" Britain and stating that you-- the enfeebled Emperor-- can't aid them. Whatever they "lost" in 383, they gained back. At least 5 detachments were sent into Britain around 396, most of them cavalry.

The usurper was Constantine III, actually a third choice. Two years later, in 409, the Britons kicked his officials out-- which signals they were still loyaly a part of the Western empire. So was Britanny. Around 430, the Emperor assigned King Eothar and his Alans to crush a fracus in Little Britain. He was met upon the road by Bishop Germanus and no blood was spilled. This action also shows the Britons were still part of the Empire.

Next we have Emperor Anthemius begging the Briton's general Riothamus to help him stop the Gothic King Euric from taking land north of the Kingdom of Toulouse in Gaul. This was in 469-470, and it was described incorrectly on the RAT thread "5th Century Roman Timeline." You wouldn't ask Britons for aid if they were an independent country no longer tied to the Empire.

Perhaps you are thinking of the movie "The Last Legion" in which Romulus goes to Britain after being usurped in 476?

"The Last Legion" was fantasy, and none too good. The flick had Merlin telling us that Excalibur was forged by a "Chalybean" who evidently migrated from the Black Sea to downtown London. If there ever was a recall of standards, it probably did happen in 476. But as far as I know there is no concrete proof. We certainly know Britain was still a province in 470 with Britons fighting for Rome against the Visigoths.

[Epictetus]

Roman was more or less "abandoned" by Rome in 410 AD, the Emperor, Honorius told them they should seek to their own defenses.

I asked about the Rescript of Honorius in a thread some time ago. There were some excellent replies.

Edit: The link has stopped working for me for some reason. After some digging I found it again. Hopefully this one works.

http://www.ancient-warfare.org/rat.html?...057#262057

[Alanus]

Hello Epictetus,

Thanks for a link to the thread "Rescript of Honoris." As you can see, I'm on one side of a legitimate argument that can never be solved. But the idea that Rome just sailed off into the sunset is no longer viable. The revolt may well have been against Constantine's administration; the time-line year verifies it. And did later historians use Zosimus' muddled verbiage as a guide? Perhaps so.

[Ron Andrea]

THere's a reason those were called the Dark Ages. Few sources, and those not definitive.

[Alanus]

Hi Ron,

Yes! A sage comment.

I know that you, I, and Robert Vermaat, might have discussed some of this on the old "Post-Roman Briain Cavalry" channel. There is good reason this present thread should die a quick and natural death. The argument cannot be solved. Too late!

My view-- that Britain was not "abandoned"-- is basically a backlash to Victorian writers who perpetuated the foggy Honorius/Bogusorius letter as gospel truth.

[Medicus matt]

As far as we know, there's no newly minted coinage coming into Britain after the first decade of the 5th century.
The complete collapse of a fiscal economy and an end to the large scale importation of goods associated with it are good archaeological proofs of the end of any sort of practical Imperial sponsorship/support involvment in the government of Britain.

Eothar? I thought Aetius sent him to 'New Britain' (ie Britanny)and, therefore, nothing to do with Britain?

And as for asking for aid from (a) Riothamus...it wouldn't be the first time that Rome had requested aid from an independant, rather than client, king. Enlisting foederati to help counter the threat presented by former foederati is the usual model for late 4th and 5th century warfare in the West. It's certainly no indication that the rulers(s) of Britain were under any sort of Imperial control or obligation.

[Agraes]

Gohar, king of the Alans, was sent to Armorica. Brittany didn't exist by yet, the name only appears in the 6th century. Territories settled by the Britons on the continent were perhaps called Letavia by then
Armorica isn't only Brittany, it was much larger, including a good part of western Gaul between Loire and Seine. There is a lot of misconceptions about this.

Jordanes when he wrote about the Catalaunian fields list Britons (or Letavi depending of the manuscripts) and Armoricans among the allies of Aetius, ie germanic foederati in Gaul, saying all of those use to be soldiers of Rome but now served her as auxiliaries (something we may take with the meaning of Foederati).

Britons - those in the west - were technically roman citizens but had much more to do with gentiles and foederati. A romanised and christian elite, a dual culture, but barbarian laws and language.
In Brittany the difference was clear between "Romans" ie Armorican/romano-gallic population and the Britons in the early medieval period, just like elsewhere in Gaul.

And it's not unlikely Riothamus (sometimes adequated with Ambrosius Aurelianus) was himself coming from Dumnonia or Durotrigia, lands that preserved or revived a somewhat warlike culture without need to ask saxon federates to settle down and take the power

[Gaius Colletti]

There is a difference between "abandoning" Britain and stating that you-- the enfeebled Emperor-- can't aid them. Whatever they "lost" in 383, they gained back. At least 5 detachments were sent into Britain around 396, most of them cavalry.

The usurper was Constantine III, actually a third choice. Two years later, in 409, the Britons kicked his officials out-- which signals they were still loyaly a part of the Western empire. So was Britanny. Around 430, the Emperor assigned King Eothar and his Alans to crush a fracus in Little Britain. He was met upon the road by Bishop Germanus and no blood was spilled. This action also shows the Britons were still part of the Empire.

In 396 you must be referring to the legion Stilicho sent to Britain to repel the Picts and Scots, and they were able to recapture some territory. However the Britons more likely kicked out Constantine III's troops because they were Roman officials, not because they were still loyal to Rome. I am sure Constantine's falling popularity had something to do with it as well, giving them the courage to rebel. I am unaware of any evidence of further British loyalty to Rome at this point

[Simplex]

Hi,
...there seems to have been a grand-scale symposium on that topic in March 2010 :
http://heritage-key.com/exhibition/ad-41...nniversary
If I understood the conference programme/timetable right:
http://heritage-key.com/blogs/ann/ad-410...ish-museum
>>it says under "Session 2":
Anthony Birley (The Vindolanda Trust) - Honorius’ letter to the cities of Britain: a phantom
It seems that this topic is at least under "serious" discussion.:roll:
If I got the other topics right -- and just in case there's a publication about that conference, this surely must be an interesting (if not an essential) read.:?:
Someone here to give more informations about it ?!
There must have been more recent researches and findings.

Greez & Thanks in advance

Simplex

[Robert Vermaat]

I stated that Britain was still a Roman province in 470. Am I wrong or right?

Wrong.
Even though I agree that 410 was not 'the end of Roman Britain', the status of 'province' may have become obsolete withing a decade or so, if not earlier. I think there are scraps that might point to a status quo beyond 410, such as the revisions of the Niotitia Dignitatum, but how much of that was 'claim' or 'fact' we'll never know. To me, the gap between Constantine III in 411 and Vortigern (probably) in 425 is quite telling, I just can't imagine that the years inbetween should signify a calm province under a governor and a working military presence. I think of this period as a decade of erosion, after which the last units ceased to exist or function. It's also telling that no continental source thinks of Britain as part of the Empire during that time (let alone after).

A friend of mine, my Legio III commander, also believes something similar and swears the legionary standards remained in Britain until recalled by Emperor Romulus in 476.

Your commander is a romantic.

[Ron Andrea]

"Erosion" is probably the best descriptor for what was happening. Not only Roman authority but Roman culture was eroding away from the underlying strata of what remained of Briton culture and organization.

[Michael Kerr]

Gildas states in his book in chapter 15 "that the Britons sent ambassadors to Rome with letters asking for assistance and a legion is immediately sent, forgetting their past rebellion although I don't know if he was talking about Constantine III's rebellion or Magnus Maximus but this legion returned home after driving them beyond the borders but after legion left their foes attacked again and the Britons send ambassadors again in which the Romans send cavalry and marines where they mow them down like leaves. Not the exact text but chapters 15,16 and 17. Maybe it wasn't Rome but someone like the Prefect of Gaul sent some cavalry to Britain to protect his northern flank.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Michael,

Nobody knows! :-) It's one of those things. It's clear that Gildas becomes more inaccurate when writing about things further back in time, but we don't know just where the 'believability boundary' lies. Some scholars went so far to identify several 'Pictish Wars' from Gildas' writings, while others see the impossibility of that. Gildas may be just a sucker for literary simetry: British is occupied by the Romans after three expeditions, maybe Britain was abandoned also after three expeditions.

Anyway, Gildas is writing a sermon first and only then (perhaps) an historical account. meaning: read what he writes but don't take everything literary! For one he may not have known the facts (Gildas ascribes Hadrian's Wall to Severus), or he may do what many writing from Antiquity wrote: hyperbole. Read here about Gildas and his colleagues exaggerating wildly:
http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/gilddark.htm

So, after taking all of that in, Gildas may be writing nonsense in order to explain why Britain fell, or he may have been writing vague accounts of real Roman expeditions. You decide. mile: Don't get us started about when Britain fell/was abandoned/rebelled/all of the above: 410, 440, inbetween?? :whistle: