Questions on Constantius, Constantine and the Northern British Tribes

[Robert Vermaat]

Are you suggesting that the previously recorded tribes had suddenly ceased to exist?

No. After the occupation the tribes became citizens. The civitates show the extent of the former tribes, but you can, after a certain amount of time, no longer speak of 'tribes'. Their tribal hierarchy is gone (no more kings), thei religious hierarchy is gone (no more druids), their military hierarchy is gone (no more tribal warriors). What's left is the landowners, and this changed rapidly under Roman influence.

By the time of Constantine, even though you might speak of the 'people of the civitas of the Dobunni', this is in all respect very different from the 'PRIA tribe of the Dobunni'. No more tribes.

Such a view (your former statement) cannot be stated with any certainty and the weight of evidence gives a more mixed picture.

What evidence is that? Not sure what you are referring to.
If you mean that statement about assimilations etc., well, we have no information about the British citizens being adverse to Constantine (to the contrary I would say) and als we also dont know if his elevation caused many to volunteer for the army.
Nor, I'll repeat, do we know if the tribes outside the Empire took service with Contantine's army.

Eusebius does not claim to be an historian and admits as such but there is no reason to doubt his statement on Constantines need to subdue the troublesome British.

Exactly. Many authors use figures of speech such as 'the troublesome British', leaving their readers to determine which group they are referring to! Either marauding provincials, rebellious British legions, Irish pirates, Scottinsh raiders or unsubdued Britons, all have been dyed with the 'colour of woad' by Roman poets and writers when referring to 'happenings in far-off Britain'.
By no means can we conclude from such sentences that the British provincials were trbal hotheads, still un-Romanized and troublesome.