Reason for Saxon Attacks of Third Century

[James Hargreaves]

Greetings all,

Im currently doing a little research on the third century crisis from a British perspective. I was wondering if anybody had any information or could put me on the right path as to the reasons why saxon and frankish piracy in the North Sea/English channel began. Almost all of the information i can find on Saxon piracy relates to the later invasion.

Only information I have is Faulkner's Decline and Fall of Britain which explains Sea encroachment in Northern Europe. All other publications i have consulted merely state raids started. Of course raids for piracy can be an end on its own but i wondered if booty was the main reason.

Anyones opinion on this matter would be welcome

Thanks very much

James

[Nathan Ross]

First you'd have to ask whether there actually was substantial piracy on the British coast in the third century. Not such an easy question - I asked about it in this post here and we had quite a lively discussion. It's possible, for example, that 3rd century coin hoards were more a response to domestic instability than pirate threat, and the shore forts were initially built to defend against full-scale invasions from continental Europe.

Haywood's Dark Age Naval Power provides one of the more accessible surveys of the topic of Frankish and Saxon sea raids - I haven't got a copy with me any more, sadly, and I don't recall if he goes into detail on the reasons for raids.

Regarding these reason, I think you'd have to start by looking at the continental situation in the third century. While the evidence from Britain is still somewhat inconclusive, it seems certain that Germanic peoples did raid the coasts of Gaul and even Spain by sea, and might have crossed over to the British coast rather later.

A few thoughts, off the top of my head: firstly, the formation of large tribal 'supergroups' around the middle third century - the Franks, Alamanni, probably the Picts, and perhaps even the 'Saxons' - could have been a response to an outside threat (migrations from the east, or Scotti from the west in the Pictish case), or just a general move towards confederation and consolidation. Either way, these big groups posed a far more cohesive threat to Roman borders - initial punitive raids may have provoked more study responses, and so on escalating upwards into the massive cross-border invasions of the later century.

There's also the breakdown of central Roman rule to consider. A fragmented empire might have presented a tempting target. Carausius, allegedly, used large numbers of Frankish mercenaries in his war against Constantius - earlier usurpers in the west might have done the same, giving the Franks and associated peoples a close look at the potential weaknesses of the Roman coasts. The temporary withdrawal of Roman power in north-western Belgica (to the Bavay 'frontier') in the later century might also have drawn raiders down along the coast.

I don't think you'll find a definite answer to this question, in short, but it's an interesting topic to debate!

[Jona Lendering]

I think that one aspect is that the Saxons continued an older tradition. Gannascus already was a pirate in 47 (Tacitus, Annals). Pliny also mentions Chaukian raiders, building large canoes. There was also a Chaukian raid in 173 (Historia Augusta, Didius Julianus).

That there must have been other raids, is shown by the construction of coastal defenses between the Rhine and the Strait of Dover in the mid-second century. Unfortunately, the excavation at Ockenburgh (near The Hague) is not yet published in English; at least two or even three other sites in the The Hague area are now known.

So, I think that the Saxons merely continued an existing practice.

[Robert Vermaat]

What we should never forget is that there was (is) but a thin line between trade and piracy. Whether a 21st-c. Somalian fisherman, an 17th-c. British buccaneer, a 16th-c. Dutchmerchantman or an 11th-c. Frisian trader, it could very much depend on the chance of easy profit. If you could trade, you traded. if you could raid, you raided. Vikings plundered as easily as they traded, too. I think this tradition could indeed be superinposed on the 3rd century, to perhaps see a rise in 'chances' for North Sea traders to hit largely less protected coasts.

Perhaps a rise in raiding of the British coasts was due to a reaction in Gaul to the loss of central governemnt influence with the creation of the Gallic Empire?

It's not always easy to distill a correct picture from the sources that we have, but a Jona mentioned, Germanic pyracy was not new, and already rose and fell during earlier centuries.

And like Duncan said, there were developments on the continent leading to changes in the germanic tribal structures.

Of course, we should never overestimate these so-called 'supertribes'. As we know from the Franks and Saxons, these 'supertribes' were more a single name for a lot of tribes then an enlarged tribal structure acting as one. Although the 'Anglo-Saxons' invaded Britain the history of their settlement is not one of large kingdoms (no matter they tried to describe it as such from the 7th century), but one of families and tiny regions governed by warlords, slowly coascing into smaller kingdoms, from with ebventually the Heptarchy emerged.

We see the same with the Franks: no supertribe actually existed, but Frankish settlers within the Empire grew into several areas dominated by a warlord (usually with a legitimate Roman military function) before Clovis conquered the existing regions (and a dozen sub-kings within these regions) inside and outside the Empire.

I'm not sure what effect these developments had on North Sea piracy, but perhaps it became easier to create treaties and coordinated attacks?

[jho]

The excavations at the Germanic settlement of Feddersen Wierde on the North sea coast are often cited in this context.

From the late 1st century AD to the 5th century AD (when the settlement was abandoned) they show a tendency of growing social stratification (with one family ultimately assuming some sort of control of the village) and at the same time a dwindling agricultural basis (declining amounts of cereal and cattle, increase in evidence for crafts). Both of these tendencies will have played a role in an increase of "external" activities, be it trade or piracy.

[James Hargreaves]

Thanks for the input guys. Really appreciate it. Great Forum by the way, wish I had found it years ago!

[Robert Vermaat]

The pleasure's ours!