The Votadini exodus to Wales

[Arturus Uriconium]

I posted the following in a thread about Valentia but thought it worth posting here as it could affect the 'migration' theory. Apologies that it's so long.

It is said that the so called Barbarian Conspiracy (in 367) involved the Saxons, Picts, Scots and Attacotti. Ammianus tells us that the Saxons and Franks were attacking Gaul, not Britain and when Theodosius arrived on London, we are not told who was doing the attacking, they are just called “roving band of plunderers”. We don’t know who killed the Count of the Saxon Shore but it probably allowed the Picts, if it wasn’t the Saxons, to sail some 500 miles to get to London? If, indeed, they did and these roving bands weren’t the rebellious soldiers?

Ammianus also tells us it included treachery on the frontier defences, army desertion and, two years later, the usurption of the political exile Valentinus (who the new province was not named after). It has also been questioned as to why Ammianus tells us that Count Thoedosius wanted to avoid reprisals for fear of further disturbances.

“...led him [Theodosius], with an eye to the future, to forbid investigations into fellow-conspirators, incase this should spread alarm among many people and stir up again in the province...”

So he’s telling us he didn’t want to stir up a problem within the province again. Was the Barbarian Conspiracy as much a propaganda exaggeration, as argued by some, because Theodosius was the father of the current emperor? (Am I right in saying the supposed attacks appear to be invisible to archaeology?). Was it as much a cover-up for civil unrest caused, or added to, by Valentinus?

Whatever the case, the area most affected was won back and named Valentia after Valentinian III. There are some who argue for Valentia being the Gododdin (Votdinian) region, but, if so, why is it said it was part of a province recently lost and why is there no archaeological evidence of re-occupation? The text doesn’t make it sound like it’s north of the Wall...

“[Theodosius] restored to its former state a province which was recovered that he [Theodosius] had _previously abandoned to enemy rule_. This he did to the extent that it had a properly-appointed governor, and it was from that time onwards known as 'Valentia' by decision of the emperor.” (Ammianus, XXVIII. iii.)

North of the Wall wasn’t abandoned by Theodosius. It sounds to me that this province may have been l’abandoned to the enemy’ in 367 (or before) and wasn’t regained until 369 or later. Considering that he fought against Scots and Picts it could be the northwest below the Wall, the whole area below the Wall or, indeed, anywhere down the western seaboard to North Wales. Professor Birley in his book The Roman Government of Britain believes that Britannia Secunda may have already been divided, possibly north and south as opposed to east and west, with the new part - whatever it was called - being renamed Valentia. Bartholemew (Britannia 15, 1984) argues for Maxima being renamed. Hind (Historia, 23, 1973) suggests the whole diocese was renamed and there are others of course.

As some will know, another candidate is what is now Wales, or a part there-of, which then would have been Britannia Prima. This, I believe, is partly because of a 16th century Breton document that says Brochmael was the king of Gualentius, the Latininized Breton version of Valentia. The only Brochmael known is Brochmael Ysgythrog, as 6th century ruler of Powys. Ann Dornier (Britannia, Vol. 13, (1982), pp. 253-257 ) forcefully argues that it’s possible that what was the northern half of Britannia Prima and the western half of Britannia Secunda became Valentia with the provincial capital at Chester. Below are quotes from her paper:

BROCHMAEL

“The section on S. Sulian in the Lion Breviary of I 516 begins thus: Fuit igitur beatus Sulianus Jilius Bromailli regis nobilissimi qui regnum Britanniae quod Gualentius dicitur suo quondam tempore strenuissime noscitur g~be rnas s e(.The blessed Sulian was the son of the most noble king Bromaillus [sic Brochmael] who is known to have ruled most energetically the kingdom of Britain which formerly in his day was called Gualentius [sic Valentia]). Gualentius is clearly a Latinized Breton rendering of the name Valentia.” (Ann Dornier (Britannia, Vol. 13, (1982), pp. 253)

PROVINCIAL CAPITAL

“Although there are several places which might be properly considered, the weight of evidence seems in favour of Chester. It has been pointed out that by the early third century at the latest the civil settlement of Chester had acquired independent status It was probably the civitas capital of the Deceangli; and by the fourth century the civitas of the Deceangli may have absorbed that of the Cornovii, thus increasing Chester's administrative importance. There is a growing body of archaeological evidence that in the late Roman period Chester was more than just a legionary base with a modest civil settlement: there was clearly a very prosperous civilian population living to the west and south of the fortress; and there is the possibility that in the west at least this area was bounded by a defensive perimeter, marked by the circuit of the medieval west wall. This would bring it into line with such places as York and Lincoln. Moreover, there are hints from post-Roman sources that Chester may have been a late/ sub-Roman ecclesiastical metropolitan, and therefore by definition a provincial capital. Finally, the fortress of Chester may have been of greater military importance in the late period than has hitherto been thought (see below, pp. 257-8), and this may have been a contributory factor in the choice of Chester as the provincial capital of Valentia.” (Ann Dornier (Britannia, Vol. 13, (1982), pp. 255)

CONSULAR

“Why and in what context would a second consular province have been considered necessary or desirable, and why Valentia? Several possibilities present themselves. First it may have had something to do with the imperial ego. If the creation of Valentia was the work of Constans in 343 and if it was originally called Constantia after him, it may have been given consular status at its inception, befitting for a new province named after the victorious emperor. Alternatively, if originally equestrian, its elevation may have gone hand in hand with its renaming after the reigning emperor(s) in 369, perhaps as a way of underlining how great was the imperial victory in recovering the province. Secondly, military considerations may have been the important factor...” (Ann Dornier (Britannia, Vol. 13, (1982), pp. 257)

If she’s right, would this mean that the diocese capital would be moved here (or wherever it was), if there still was a diocese capital by this point, after London, or Maxima, was lost? If she's right, could possibly explain the movement of Cunedda? If he was 'hired' by Valentia he could have started in the north (as one source has him fighting at Carlisle) and make his way down the western seaboard and ending in North Wales, rather than just being sent there. Britannia Prima or Demetia could have then called on his assistance once he was ther, hence ‘Cunedda's Hill’ in Dyfed?

If Dornier is right then it would have been a huge, and possibly unwieldy, province. My leaning would be to west of the Pennines down to Chester and then, possibly, the North Wales coastal region to the Lleyn Peninsular, including Anglesey, there by looking after the Scotti problem. This might explain Rheged’s supposed huge size (although there still is no certainty to where it was) but that could be just down to the size of the Brigantian territory. However, I find defining the provincial border quite difficult for this scenario. Ending at Chester and the Dee is an option I suppose, but then that would exclude the Cornovii further south. It could have, as Dornier suggests, ended where the Deceangli territory may have done when first created: possibly at the River Conwy . No one’s really sure about this enigmatic ‘kingdom’ (later to be called ‘The Middle Kingdom’) even Ptolemy missed it off his map. This, Cunedda (or whoever founded Guenedota (Gwynedd) then expanded, probably taking it from the ‘Irish’, encompassing in the Lleyn, and beyond.

Could this be why Claudian's de consulatu Stilichonis, (2, 250-5), written in January 400, putting words into the mouth of Britannia herself, says:

“When I too was about to succumb to the attack of neighbouring peoples - for the Scots had raised all Ireland against me, and the sea foamed under hostile oars - you, Stilicho, fortified me. This was to such effect that I no longer fear the weapons of the Scots, nor tremble at the Pict...”

TALIESIN

Could this also be why Taliesin writes both for a king of Rheged and a king of Powys (Cyngen, son of Brochmael)?

Mak