Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Votadini, client kingdom?
#1
Do we have any evidence of the existence of the Votadini client kingdom? 

Where it was placed
From the Geographia of Ptolemy (II.ii) we know their main settlements: "Further south are the Otalini, among whom are the following towns: Coria, Alauna, Bremenium". Otalini could be an error of Ptolemy of an error of the scribes.
Also, from that book, we know that:
- The Firth of Forth, which marked the tribes northern border was known in ancient times as the Boderia or Bodotria Aestuarium.
- The River Aln in Northumberland was known as the Alaunus, upon which was situated the settlement and fort of Alauna.
- The Cocuveda Fluvius now known as the River Coquet, empties into the North Sea at Amble in Northumberland, opposite Coquet Island.
- The River Tyne, or the Tineus Fluvius, possibly marked the tribe's southern border with the Brigantes tribe of north-eastern England.

So, we can place the Votadini tribe in the eastern parts of Northumberland, immediately after the Hadrian's Wall (which it is possible that included part of the tribe territory).

The Traprain Law Hillfort in East Lothian could be the oppidum of the Votadini tribe. It is a large hillfort first settled in the 8th BC, which seems to be continuely occupied throughout the Romano-British period. The fact that its inhabitants were allowed to remain, suggests that there was some form of treaty between the Votadini and the Roman military administration.
[Image: d8b7c554fa6797bc733d185e4a20d07025e8ae54.gif]
Votadini tribes: 9

Characteristics of the tribe
As we can read at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/bri...n_01.shtml, the Votadini were a very large tribe, organized, as the brigantes, in a group made up of smaller tribes, but archaeologically, the territory of the Votadini was very different to that of either the Venicones or the Novantae. Large walls, banks and ditches surrounded most of their farms and the people made offerings of fine metal objects, but never wore massive armlets. 
The archeology confirms that there are at least three very large hillforts in their territory (Yeavering Bell, Eildon Seat and Traprain Law), each was located on the top of a prominent hill or mountain. The hillforts may have been used for over a thousand years by this time as places of refuge and as places for meetings for political and religious ceremonies.

Roman activities
We know that at least for three periods, that territory was directly controlled by the Romans:
- 80-105? (the territory seems have been abandoned following roman engagement in Dacia)
- 140-164 
- 209-211

Some fortresses were hold in the nort of the Hadrian's wall also when roman troops withdrew to the wall. Trimontium, today's Newstead, was occupied by the Romans intermittently from 80 to 211. And there were also other fortresses. It is interesting that Trimontium position was perfect to control the Votadini, but also to eventually seperate them from the tribes of the west of the region.

There could be also another occupation, with the instauration of the Roman province of Valentia, under Count Theodosius activities, but it is highly probable that the province was southern of the Hadrian wall and not northern.

So, we know that Roman for some time occupied the place, and for long time kept some forces in a position useful to control the tribe.

Client Kingdom?
But, once the Romans withdrew in the 164, what situation they left in the Votadini territory? Old poems tell of kings by Romanised names, but we are more interested in evidences. 

The main towns seem to be occupied steadily. And we know that they were quite big towns, easy to be attacked by the Romans. And we know that romans troops were near. So it is quite obvious that there were some contacts and relations. But can we really speak of a client relationship?

Excavations in Votadini territory, especially around Traprain Law, have unearthed silver Roman items (also including Gallic Roman coins). But this could indicate:
- trade
- appeasement
- raids

Concluding, it seems that we don't have enough information to conclude that Votadini were a client kingdom. Romans had the forces to put pressure, and they effectively kept troops in the area, but we don't have real evidences to speak about a client kingdom.
This is what I have found, this topic has been opened in order to collect more info about the relations between Rome and the Votadini, searching for evidences of these relations.
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#2
(I think this should be in 'Allies and Enemies', not 'Roman Military History')

(10-04-2018, 08:33 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: we don't have enough information to conclude that Votadini were a client kingdom.


I agree. As I mentioned on another thread, the theory seems to go back a long way, appearing in British scholarship before the 1950s. Already by 1955 a writer in the journal Antiquity commented that "the evidence for this engrained popular notion is slight indeed"...

In fact, most of our evidence for the Votadini seems pretty slight. Ptolemy calls them Otalini, as you say, and gives them three settlements - all Roman military bases. Of the three, Corbridge was south of Hadrian's Wall, and one of the others, High Rochester, maintained its garrison until c.AD320-350.

Other than Ptolemy, we only have Nennius and Gildas to go on, and some dubious 9th century Welsh genealogies for Cunedda; but, as Stephen Johnson points out in Later Roman Britain (p.65-66), a lot of this was possibly forged for propaganda purposes - he cites a stone inscribed to one Cantioris that was later amended to read 'Venedotis cive fuit' ('he was a Venedotian citizen') - the Venedoti are assumed to be the Votadini, but even this is far from clear.

Cunedda's supposedly 'Romanised' ancestors in the north might have been similarly fanciful, or legendary. Meanwhile, a lot of what earlier writers believed about the situation in the Roman north (including the positioning of 'Valentia') was based on an 18th-century forgery called De Situ Britanniae, which was not fully debunked until the later 19th century.

So we don't really have much on the Votadini at all until their (re)appearance as Gododdin in the 5th-6th century. Presumably, though, some powerful people must have been based at Traprain Law in the earlier period, and we may as well call them the Votadini! But were they a kingdom? Were they independent? No Roman accounts of fighting in North Britain in the 2nd-4th centuries mentions them at all.

If there was a Votadini kingdom, then the Romans might have allied with them. But would that make them a 'client kingdom'? That would involve a formal treaty: the Votadini would pay tribute to Rome, and Rome would protect the Votadinian kings from enemies both internal and external. Did Rome have the need, or even the capability, to do this?

The powerful peoples north of the frontier appear to have been the Maetae and the Caledones, and later the Picts. That these people continued to be a threat is suggested by the ongoing repairs to Hadrian's Wall and the maintenance of garrisons, as well as the new signal towers and forts on the coasts constructed in the later 4th century. Why was all this needed, if the powerful client kingdom of the Votadini stood between Rome and her enemies?
Nathan Ross
Reply
#3
(10-05-2018, 01:25 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: If there was a Votadini kingdom, then the Romans might have allied with them. But would that make them a 'client kingdom'? That would involve a formal treaty: the Votadini would pay tribute to Rome, and Rome would protect the Votadinian kings from enemies both internal and external. Did Rome have the need, or even the capability, to do this?

The need? Probably not. The opportunity? Yes, for sure. Why? Divide et impera. An allies at the north of the wallum provided big opportunities. Possibility to easily scout in depth, support for the garrisons and, not last, less enemies.
And, from this point of view, the Trimontium for was the ideal for both scopes, keeping the tribes separated and provide a visual sign of the power of Rome, useful to keep calm.

Quote:The powerful peoples north of the frontier appear to have been the Maetae and the Caledones, and later the Picts. That these people continued to be a threat is suggested by the ongoing repairs to Hadrian's Wall and the maintenance of garrisons, as well as the new signal towers and forts on the coasts constructed in the later 4th century. Why was all this needed, if the powerful client kingdom of the Votadini stood between Rome and her enemies?
Well the Votadini were quite big, but not so big. Probably they occupied neither half of the lands in front of the Hadrian's Wall, finaly a little fraction even of the no massive lands between Hadrian's Wall and Antonine's Wall. They were useful, but not able to stop real invasion. And not so big even to defend all the wall from raids.
Instead, I would say that the relative calm between the second century and the fourth, suggests that a sort of appeasement with that people was quite probable. Their help could not have been decisive, but useful for sure. It is also interesting noting that from the archeology we don't know of massive destructions in their villages, and this could be another sign of the fact that Romans were in good relations with them.


For the costal forts, well, there is another explanation: Comes litoris Saxonici per Britannias, Notitia dignitatum, they were there to avoid mainly incursions of other barbarians populations, such as the Saxons.
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#4
Wink 
(10-05-2018, 05:34 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: the relative calm between the second century and the fourth, suggests that a sort of appeasement with that people was quite probable.

Yes, that seems possible. Although who was appeasing whom? [Image: wink.png]

I would suggest that the massive campaigns by Severus and Caracalla deep into the north, and involving very large numbers of troops, probably did more to batter the inhabitants of those lands into a state of peace and quiet. And, of course, no source mentions  the people of the border area at this time, so we still don't have to imagine any sort of formal client arrangements in place.

We should also consider that the Roman limes were never really a line drawn on a map, or a wall or ditch, like a modern state border - it was a frontier zone, extending for a variable distance into barbaricum, and (especially after the third century) expanding into a defensive military zone inside the border as well.


(10-05-2018, 05:34 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: Comes litoris Saxonici per Britannias... to avoid mainly incursions of other barbarians populations, such as the Saxons.

The 'Saxon shore' was along the south and east coast. The later fortifications on the northern coasts, from Bridlington to Huntcliff on the east and at Lancaster on the west coast, were probably built to counter Pictish and Scotti/Irish raiders. The Saxons most likely lacked the capability to sail directly across the north sea during this period, and their raids would probably have followed the pattern of earlier Frisian and Frankish attacks, down the coast and across the straits of Dover.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#5
Indeed. When the Votadini finally fight for supremacy against the Germanic invaders, it's after these took over Deira and Bernicia - to the south of the Votadinian lands.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#6
(10-06-2018, 01:31 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: I would suggest that the massive campaigns by Severus and Caracalla deep into the north, and involving very large numbers of troops, probably did more to batter the inhabitants of those lands into a state of peace and quiet. And, of course, no source mentions  the people of the border area at this time, so we still don't have to imagine any sort of formal client arrangements in place.
Well... massive campaigns... from what I know, at the end Severus moved to Britain just a legion, the Legio II Parthica, and the Praetorian Guard, more or less another legion. Apart that, he obviously used Britain Legions, but not all of them to keep the province garrisoned.
Far from being a very large number of troops. Anyway, this does not tell us if the Votadini were creating problems, probably no. We know that beyond the wall there were clashes and problems. But we know that the name of  Maeatae, that were people that lived not directly near the Hadrian's Wall.

So, we don't have enough sources to say that the Votadini where a client kingdom, but this doesn't say that we don't have to investigate in this direction, so imagining it.

(10-06-2018, 01:31 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: The 'Saxon shore' was along the south and east coast. The later fortifications on the northern coasts, from Bridlington to Huntcliff on the east and at Lancaster on the west coast, were probably built to counter Pictish and Scotti/Irish raiders. The Saxons most likely lacked the capability to sail directly across the north sea during this period, and their raids would probably have followed the pattern of earlier Frisian and Frankish attacks, down the coast and across the straits of Dover.
Probably... but more likely there was a double purpose: defending from an increased range of Saxons and at the same time from threath from the north. But I am more interested in the period related to the II and III century for this topic.
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#7
(02-02-2019, 12:00 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: from what I know, at the end Severus moved to Britain just a legion, the Legio II Parthica, and the Praetorian Guard, more or less another legion. Apart that, he obviously used Britain Legions... Far from being a very large number of troops.

I suggested the same thing back here, drawing on Nicholas Reed's "The Scottish campaigns of Septimius Severus", (Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 107, 1975). The three British legions, plus II Parthica and the Praetorian Guard, and an equal complement of auxiliaries, would probably comprise a force of around 40,000 men.

As you know, we have no direct evidence for the size of the army Severus led into Scotland - Cassius Dio claimed he lost 50,000 men, but this is almost certainly an exaggeration or a mistake. The series of very large marching camps - 130 and 165 acres - if they are indeed Severan, would support an army of the size Reed proposed.

An imperial expedition lasting several years, led by the Augustus and his son, apparently supported by the fleet and involving the construction of new supply infrastructure would indeed suggest a 'very large number of troops'. Compared with the probable population density in Scotland, an army of 40,000 would be massive. Colin Martin ('To Scotland Then They Came, Burning', British Archaeology 6, July 1995) has suggested a deliberate policy of depopulation and attacks on arable land that he equates to genocide.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#8
(02-02-2019, 04:20 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: As you know, we have no direct evidence for the size of the army Severus led into Scotland - Cassius Dio claimed he lost 50,000 men, but this is almost certainly an exaggeration or a mistake. The series of very large marching camps - 130 and 165 acres - if they are indeed Severan, would support an army of the size Reed proposed.

An imperial expedition lasting several years, led by the Augustus and his son, apparently supported by the fleet and involving the construction of new supply infrastructure would indeed suggest a 'very large number of troops'. Compared with the probable population density in Scotland, an army of 40,000 would be massive. Colin Martin ('To Scotland Then They Came, Burning', British Archaeology 6, July 1995) has suggested a deliberate policy of depopulation and attacks on arable land that he equates to genocide.
According to what we know, Cassius Dio claim is simply absurd. Cassius Dio 77.13.2:
"The enemy purposely put sheep and cattle in front of the soldiers for them to seize, in order that they might be lured on still further until they were worn out; for in fact the water caused great suffering to the Romans, and when they became scattered, they would be attacked. Then, unable to walk, they would be slain by their own men, in order to avoid capture, so that a full fifty thousand died."
And we are not talking about the lost in the entire campaign. So, just in that step we see that the Romans lost... more men than their entire army in Britain... come on, or it is a mistake of the amanuensis or Cassius was under the effect of heavy drugs.

But, apart this, we don't have any evidence that the three Roman Legions of Britannia where costantly engaged in the north together with the II Parthica. So, it is hard to say that it was a "very large number of troops". It was a a campaign of significant dimensions, but not at all massive.
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#9
(02-02-2019, 09:46 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: So, it is hard to say that it was a "very large number of troops". It was a a campaign of significant dimensions, but not at all massive.

Sure enough, as you say, we have no definite evidence of the numbers involved. But I would suggest that an imperial campaign of three years' duration, involving not only the Augustus but also his son and heir, with no certain victory at the end, would have been no small undertaking and would have involved considerable numbers of men - few Roman campaign forces during the Principiate would have been larger.

If those 130 and 165 acre camps date to this campaign - as seems likely - they would indeed suggest a very large army (why build a huge camp without a huge army, right?) 165 acres is larger than the eight-legion camp that Caesar built before the Battle of the Sambre, for example.

But this is a detour from the subject. Perhaps we should be more concerned that our few sources for this campaign do not mention the so-called Votadini at all, which suggests either that they lacked strategic or political significance at this point, or that they did not exist as a recognised people at the time.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#10
Castra Vetera was a double legionary fortress, so two legions, and was around 50 ha (ectares). This means around 123 acre. So, the figures that you are providing are compatible with what we know, that the Caledonian campaign of Severus is far from being characterized by a "very large number of troops".
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#11
(02-09-2019, 03:01 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: double legionary fortress... around 50 ha (ectares). This means around 123 acre... the Caledonian campaign of Severus is far from being characterized by a "very large number of troops".

Permanent legion fortresses held considerably fewer men per acre or hectare than temporary marching camps. You might like to look through Steve Kaye's paper on the subject here for some estimates. The 'Severan' camps in Britain are among the largest known, and would suggest a very large army, commensurate with a campaign led by the emperor in person.

However, as I say we can have no certainty about this, and it does not relate directly to the subject!
Nathan Ross
Reply
#12
I would not consider it a simple marching camp, but a logistic base for the campaign. If we look at real marching camp, we can consider Polybius' marching camp. Created for two legions and related auxiliary troops, with no much space between tents and palisade, we have an area about 36 ha (88 acres) in size. And, as said, Severus troops were something more (probably around the effective of 3 legions, around 2 legions from italy, including Pretorians, plus vexillationes from Britain legions, and obvs auxiliary troops). The figures are compatible.
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#13
Here again to discuss with you about a possibility, asking you to challenge the idea and found weak points.

It is possible and consistent with what we know that around 410 AD Britannia was left alone. The bulk of the roman troops were used for another civil war, and Honorius refused to send other men in the island.

It is highly plausible that the last roman commanders remained in Britain finally took the power for themselves, replacing Roman command with local and personal kingdoms. Local commanders may have taken easily the power. The Dux Britanniarum, commanding limitanei and not comitatensi troops (moved to fight in Europe), probably still had a good amount of troops under his control, so it is not difficult to think that was eventually able to use them to secure a kingdom.

And, in fact, it is thought (John Morris, English historian) that Coel Hen was the last Dux Britanniarum. He gave birth to a powerful kingdom, based in Eburacum (York), practically the lands that were originally under his command.

What is interesting to notice is that in his domain could have included also land beyond the vallum. Several kingdoms were create after his death. We are not sure that the Rheged kingdom was including land in the South of Scotland. But what can we say about the Bernaccia kingdom? Is this another kingdom that started just with the Votadini south lands, or was it including also land beyond the wall? In this last case, we could think that effectively the Valentia province may have included lands beyond the wall.
- CaesarAugustus
www.romanempire.cloud
(Marco Parente)
Reply
#14
We have no good idea. Morris had a way to interpret sources that is no longer accepted. Of course the old borders lost their meaning after the loss of Roman control (the same happened along the Rhine with the Franks owning lands on both sides), but we know nothing in detail. All we really have are Gildas who does not tell us anything, later king-lists and pedigrees.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Rome in the Client Kingdoms of Bosporus and Palmyr ChrisZeichmann 4 2,097 09-29-2019, 02:14 PM
Last Post: CaesarAugustus
  Soldiers Serving both Rome and Its Client Kings ChrisZeichmann 0 1,072 01-13-2014, 06:48 PM
Last Post: ChrisZeichmann

Forum Jump: