12-19-2007, 08:25 AM
Hi Nick,
First of all, contrary to popular thought, the 'conspiracy' probably wasn't one. It's common to read that 'Picts, irish and Saxons' attacked Britain, but our only source for the event, Ammianus Marcellinus, never wrote that (Res Gestae, Book XXVII, chapter 8). Picts and Irish attacked Britain, Saxons and Franks attacked Gaul.
Something did happen in Britain, and it was pretty serious, but it was not a concerted raid from all sides.
Anyway, the question was : where was Valentia?
That question cannot be answered with certainty (hence the ongoing discussion). However, I would put Moffat's suggestion aside immediately: Valentia was a full province (as we've seen from the Notitia Dignitatum), but there are no troops assigned to an area noth of the Wall. Therefore, I would find it extremely unbelievable that Valentia would be located north of Hadrian's Wall.
Other candidates are Wales, or indeed a 'proto-Rhedged', or maybe even the north of the diocese - the Wall itself.
Ammianus is clear (Res Gestae, Book XXVIII, chapter 3) that Valentia was created by Theodosius (the Elder) after he restored order in Britain after 369.
I don't agree with Frere (I think it was?) when he proposed that the new province was named after a certain rebel Valentinus. Ammianus wrote (Res Gestae, Book XXVIII, chapter 3) that a brother in law of Maximinus had been banished to Britain and was about to rebel. This may have been due to the heavy illness of Valentinian in 367, which may have cause pretenders to see their chances. Anyway, Dux Theodosius was able to suppress the rebellion before it even got off the ground.
I've always thought this a much more likely cause for the disturbences of 367 than the so-called 'barbarian conspiracy'!
The name of the new province, we may be certain, derived from the emperors Valens and Valentinian.
First of all, contrary to popular thought, the 'conspiracy' probably wasn't one. It's common to read that 'Picts, irish and Saxons' attacked Britain, but our only source for the event, Ammianus Marcellinus, never wrote that (Res Gestae, Book XXVII, chapter 8). Picts and Irish attacked Britain, Saxons and Franks attacked Gaul.
Something did happen in Britain, and it was pretty serious, but it was not a concerted raid from all sides.
Anyway, the question was : where was Valentia?
That question cannot be answered with certainty (hence the ongoing discussion). However, I would put Moffat's suggestion aside immediately: Valentia was a full province (as we've seen from the Notitia Dignitatum), but there are no troops assigned to an area noth of the Wall. Therefore, I would find it extremely unbelievable that Valentia would be located north of Hadrian's Wall.
Other candidates are Wales, or indeed a 'proto-Rhedged', or maybe even the north of the diocese - the Wall itself.
Ammianus is clear (Res Gestae, Book XXVIII, chapter 3) that Valentia was created by Theodosius (the Elder) after he restored order in Britain after 369.
I don't agree with Frere (I think it was?) when he proposed that the new province was named after a certain rebel Valentinus. Ammianus wrote (Res Gestae, Book XXVIII, chapter 3) that a brother in law of Maximinus had been banished to Britain and was about to rebel. This may have been due to the heavy illness of Valentinian in 367, which may have cause pretenders to see their chances. Anyway, Dux Theodosius was able to suppress the rebellion before it even got off the ground.
I've always thought this a much more likely cause for the disturbences of 367 than the so-called 'barbarian conspiracy'!
The name of the new province, we may be certain, derived from the emperors Valens and Valentinian.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
