01-22-2013, 10:00 PM
The last departure of the Legions was around c.429-47 however I don't think there is any evidence of the VI Victrics P F ever leaving.
Brian Stobbs
Roman \"Abandonment\" of Britain: Fact or Fiction?
|
01-22-2013, 10:00 PM
The last departure of the Legions was around c.429-47 however I don't think there is any evidence of the VI Victrics P F ever leaving.
Brian Stobbs
01-22-2013, 10:03 PM
The final departure of the Legions was around c. 429-47 however I don't think there is any record of the VI Victrics PF ever leaving.
Brian Stobbs
01-22-2013, 11:07 PM
I always thought that the last of the British units departed to Gaul in Aetius' reign.
Evan Schultheis | MODERATOR
Rhomaios Living History Society Support us on Patreon
01-23-2013, 12:20 AM
Quote:...there seems to have been a grand-scale symposium on that topic in March 2010 : Yes, I was at the conference- the key point of the lecture on Honorius' letter was that the quote is often taken out of context. In context, it could equally refer to Bruttium (sp?) in Italy as Britain. I haven't seen a conference publication yet- Matt makes the very good point about the lack of 5th century coinage. Last summer, digging in Dorchester on Thames in a 4th/5th century context in a town where a strong argument can be made for some kind of continuity post 400 AD, there was a prize of a bottle of champagne for anyone finding 5th century coinage. It remains unclaimed... I think it is unrealistic to ascribe a specific date such as 410AD- the old picture of the Roman soldiers trooping onto a boat and turning out the lights in a specific year is not right. What we seem to see is a systemic collapse - the theory I favour us that of a collapse of central power (both from Rome/ Ravenna/ Milan and from London) leaving a patchwork of individual towns/ proto states/ civitates. Each found themselves in a different situation and did as best as they could within the context of a rapidly collapsing economy and trade (well worth reading Bryan Ward- Perkins' short book on the economic change). One example is the sudden disappearance of wheel thrown pottery in 5th century Britain. A potter's wheel allows multiple pots to be thrown efficiently. But there is little point if the market where you used to sell them no longer exists. Imagine you are the town council/ ruler in Dorchester-on-Thames, Richborough, or Birdoswald on the Wall. Your strategy for survival or prosperity will be very, very different as you face a very different series of challenges. I would therefore expect a different reaction in (for example) East Anglia to the Upper Thames,and in Wales from Carlisle. In South Wales, there was a perverse upsurgence in Latin (well, sort of Latin) inscriptions on stones as shown in Margam Abbey museum (a great collection btw). Elsewhere, Germanus' visit shows that there were still officials- as Gildas also confirms e.g. "they have judges, but impious ones". On the wall, there is evidence for the garrisons remaining for a long period and slowly transmuting (e.g. Birdoswald). Romanitas, the physical structures of towns , fountains, officials, literacy etc. slowly decayed. In some places, it seems to have disappeared quickly (sometimes under pressure from incomers) - in others , it remained for longer. And this - in my opinion- is why no "grand theory" of transition from Roman rule (whatever that meant in 4th century Britain) to Saxon/ Romano British/ post Roman rule works. The transition is best understood area by area, town by town, even village by village. Which is also why you can't put a specific date on it.
01-23-2013, 09:46 AM
Quote:Robert Vermaat wrote: Hi Robert, I agree with you on Gildas's unreliability as a source as well as his dating but in regard to Hadrian's Wall I think Severus did initiate a lot of rebuilding work on the wall and maybe by Gildas's time people just assumed that Severus built the wall. Come to think of it when did people start calling it Hadrian's Wall? Maybe in his time it was just called the "Wall". The part about Gildas text that puzzled me was the part "By the advice of their protectors, they now built a wall across the island from one sea to the other....... But this wall, being made of turf instead of stone, was of no use to that foolish people, who had no head to guide them." Was he talking about the Antonine Wall or the Vallum behind Hadrian's Wall or like you said was it "hyperbole". It gets frustrating sometimes to read him and Nennius.
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
01-23-2013, 02:38 PM
Quote:The last departure of the Legions was around c.429-47 however I don't think there is any evidence of the VI Victrics P F ever leaving.No matter what I think of the dating, I'd sure like to hear why you think that any troops left around that date. You won't find any written sources I fear. Nor is there any evidence for any unit leaving. A number of units from the british garison turn up on the continent, but we can never be absolutely 100% sure if these constitute the entire unit or a vexillation.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST (Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
01-23-2013, 02:42 PM
Quote:I always thought that the last of the British units departed to Gaul in Aetius' reign.Aetius never 'reigned'.. At least valentinian III never meant him to! having said that, why do you think Aetius pulled troops from Britain? By that I mean not the logic behind it (I did read 'The Lantern Bearers') but actual evidence?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST (Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
01-23-2013, 03:10 PM
Quote: I haven't seen a conference publication yet-me neither, and there were a great number of very interesting papers! Quote:Matt makes the very good point about the lack of 5th century coinage.true, but it's not a strictly British phenomenon, although it's symptomatic (or at least it was, I'm not always following the latest publications) for the way archaeology looks at British events, without comparing these to event in NW Gaul. As it happens, minting halted in the Gaulish mints also, and others closed (or we have no more evidence of production) after the mid-5th century. The Londinium mint did not produce coins after 388. Other dates for NW Europe are: Camulodunum, (Colchester, Britain) 296 Ticinum, (Pavia, Italy) closed 326 Ambianum, (Amiens, France) 353 Lugdunum, (Lyons, France) closed 423 Aquileia, (Italy) 425 Treveri, (Trier, Germany) 430 Arelatum/Constantina, (Arles, France) 475 Therefore I think it’s not simply a matter of Britain breaking away from the Roman Empire, but a development that involved the minting of coinage in this part of the Empire, combined with political as well as military actions. Quote:And this - in my opinion- is why no "grand theory" of transition from Roman rule (whatever that meant in 4th century Britain) to Saxon/ Romano British/ post Roman rule works. The transition is best understood area by area, town by town, even village by village.I agree, and for me this also is not only a model for Britannia, but also for the rest of Germania, Gallia and Hispania. The change is gradual but relentless and ends everywhere at a different point in time, but always with the ‘end’ of identification with Rome, or ‘the Roman period’ if you wish.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST (Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
01-23-2013, 03:12 PM
Quote:Hi Robert, I agree with you on Gildas's unreliability as a source as well as his dating but in regard to Hadrian's Wall I think Severus did initiate a lot of rebuilding work on the wall and maybe by Gildas's time people just assumed that Severus built the wall.True enough, but that's different from actually building it, and this gives us a clue about what Gildas actually did (and didn't) know.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST (Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
01-23-2013, 05:50 PM
Quote:Magister Militum Flavius Aetius post=328895 Wrote:I always thought that the last of the British units departed to Gaul in Aetius' reign.Aetius never 'reigned'.. At least valentinian III never meant him to! Actually I never meant Aetius pulled the troops himself, I just meant somewhere in that timeframe came the end of Roman Authority over Britain. That is examplified by the "Groans of the Brotons" letter, which received no response from Aetius/Aegidius (whomever it was sent to). Another reason is that there was no Navy to transport troops back and forth, the Vandals had destroyed the Roman Navy, and anything left in the north was undoubtedly at serious risk to the Saxons/Frisii as it would have been undercrewed and probably with poorly-trained crews at that. I agree with your theory that britain essentially collapsed into deteriorating "city-states." However your mint dates are puzzling - Trier and Lugdunum were held and manned until they were sacked by Attila the Hun. As far as I know Aquileia was still running as well.
Evan Schultheis | MODERATOR
Rhomaios Living History Society Support us on Patreon
01-23-2013, 07:24 PM
Is there not evidence that Claudianus says that Stilicho needed legions from Gaul, Britain, Raetia, and Vindelcia, however it is only speculation on the part of Foord that the XX VV may have gone hence the later movement of Cunedda and his whole tribe to Wales that would have filled the gap left by the XXth
Brian Stobbs
01-23-2013, 08:50 PM
Alanus wrote:
Quote:I stated that Britain was still a Roman province in 470. Am I wrong or right? I don't know whether Britain was still a province but I think that Britain still had ties to Rome because politically during the reign of Vortigern there was always conflict between the pro roman faction led by Ambrosius Aurelianus and the anti-roman faction led by Vortigern so there must have been a lot of people who still had fond memories of Rome. If Ambrosius was Riothamus as some people claim (Leon Fleuriot author of book Les Origins de la Bretagne which is written in French unfortunately) then that could be an explanation for why Riothamus went to the aid of Rome and disappeared from the pages of history in 470ad.
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
01-24-2013, 02:27 PM
Hi Evan,
Quote: Actually I never meant Aetius pulled the troops himself, I just meant somewhere in that timeframe came the end of Roman Authority over Britain. That is examplified by the "Groans of the Brotons" letter, which received no response from Aetius/Aegidius (whomever it was sent to).Me being naughty. You mention 'reign' and that's reserved for kings.. not civil servants like Aetius. Semantics. ;-) About that letter, we can't date it with certainty. Even if we establish that it was addressed to Aetius, the possibility exists that the 'thrice consul' does not refer to the number of consulships but to a more poetic use of 'thrice' (as in 'truly worthy of the consulate). Gildas is, after all, not a source for dates and names. The letter, if it really existed (Gildas is wont of telling of all kinds of disaster befalling Britain), was written before Gilas’ birth and I can’t really imagine that it was known to a large number of people – so where did Gildas get his knowledge from? Quote:Another reason is that there was no Navy to transport troops back and forth, the Vandals had destroyed the Roman Navy, and anything left in the north was undoubtedly at serious risk to the Saxons/Frisii as it would have been undercrewed and probably with poorly-trained crews at that.The Roman had no standing navy. Troops were of course transported to and from Britain all the time. Transport capability therefore existed (the Vandals did not affect the Channel coast ports and fleet), but Romans usually acquired private shipping or simply built ships for the task. Quote:However your mint dates are puzzling - Trier and Lugdunum were held and manned until they were sacked by Attila the Hun. As far as I know Aquileia was still running as well.How do you know that they were? No coin issues are known from these mints after the dates given.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST (Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
01-24-2013, 02:32 PM
Quote:Is there not evidence that Claudianus says that Stilicho needed legions from Gaul, Britain, Raetia, and Vindelcia, however it is only speculation on the part of Foord that the XX VV may have gone hence the later movement of Cunedda and his whole tribe to Wales that would have filled the gap left by the XXthCunedda has been the topic of much speculation, and we don't really know much about him. the mentioning of this guy and his dynasty can as likely have been a strategic move orchestrated by Magnus maximus, as a spin by the dynasty of Mervyn Frych (to stress that his dynasty was not the first from foreign parts). Cunedda can be dated to anything from the late 4th c. to the mod-5th, depending on your traslation of the word 'avatus', which strictly means ‘great- great- great- grandfather’, or rather more simply ‘ancestor’. In most pedigrees, Cunedda is only the great-grandfather of Maglocunus. Read more about this problem here: http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/gildwhen.htm
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST (Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
01-24-2013, 02:43 PM
Quote:I don't know whether Britain was still a province but I think that Britain still had ties to Rome because politically during the reign of Vortigern there was always conflict between the pro roman faction led by Ambrosius Aurelianus and the anti-roman faction led by Vortigern so there must have been a lot of people who still had fond memories of Rome. If Ambrosius was Riothamus as some people claim (Leon Fleuriot author of book Les Origins de la Bretagne which is written in French unfortunately) then that could be an explanation for why Riothamus went to the aid of Rome and disappeared from the pages of history in 470ad.I'm afraid that the only evidence on which the 'pro-Roman' stance of Ambrosius and the 'anti-Roman' stance of Vortigern is based soleley on their names. This in turn led people to interpret a passage in the 9th c. Historia Brittonum (c. 31: "Vortigern ruled in Britain, and during his rule he was under pressure, from fear of the Picts and the Irish, and of a Roman invasion, and, not least, from dread of Ambrosius".) as proof of a conflict over that issue. However, if you accept that Riothamus was also Ambrosius, the original assumption falls away, and hence the political reason behind their rivalry. As it happens, I cannot support the identification of Riothamus with Ambrosius. Apart from other differences in their respective lives, Sidonius Appolinarius, the pinnacle of Romanitas in Late Roman Gaul, would never have addressed Ambrosius with a Celtic name.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST (Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12) |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads… | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
Anachronistic Morality and Child Abandonment | Sean Manning | 1 | 314 |
12-14-2021, 12:16 AM Last Post: Crispianus |
|
Roman road in Britain predates Rome in Britain | Endre Fodstad | 4 | 2,006 |
03-25-2011, 02:30 PM Last Post: Chariovalda |
|
Favorite Roman fiction | richsc | 21 | 5,823 |
10-19-2004, 04:38 PM Last Post: Anonymous |