8/11/2019 mummey_k

1/15

The Groans of the Britons:

Toward the British CivitatesPeriod ca. 406-455 C.E.

By Kevin Mummy

I shall not follow the writings and records of my own country, which (if there ever

were any of them) have been consumed by the fires of the enemy, or have

accompanied my exiled countrymen into distant lands &[1]

Since the time of Gildas, the first great chronicler of the British, the problem of reliable

sources, or any sources, has been lamented. Over the centuries, myth, pseudo-history, andeducated guesswork have rushed in to fill the void.

[2]The last thirty years have seen a revival of

interest in the fifth and sixth centuries, and a great deal of work has been done on the historical

and archaeological records.

Ironically, the increased focus on the period has cast a doubt on almost every important

assumption that has been made about early Britain. Ian Wood has noted that between the

usurpation of Constantine III in 407 and the death of the Roman consul Aetius in 455 there are a

handful of dateable events associated with the British Isles.

[3]

Yet even these are the subject ofintense debate. Primary narrative sources, especially the chronicles, have come under fire. Many

have been abandoned altogether, especially by archaeologists and historians favoring an

archaeological approach to the period.

With more questions than answers, historians are presented with many challenges, not the least

of which is what to call this period and over what period of time that identification might be

valid. The End of Roman Britain, Post Roman Britain, Dark Age Britain, and Arthur s Britain

have been used in the past. From archaeology we have sub-Roman Britain. All of the above are

to some degree unsatisfactory. Since the abandonment of the island by the legions of Magnus

Maximus (388), Stilicho (ca. 402), and lastly Constantine (407), a society began to form there

that was clearly not Roman. The singularity of the British historical circumstance led to a society

that was unique when compared to the Late Roman provinces on the continent.

8/11/2019 mummey_k

2/15

The question of periodization is equally problematic. Traditionally, historians have focused on

the years 400 600, approximately the time from the departure of the legions to the Augustinian

mission.[4]

While this approach has advantages in that it covers the period from Roman Britain to

Christian-era England, it paints with too broad a brush. I will argue that the period from 406 to

the mid-450s presents a unique period in British history, one in which the

independent civitatesof the island established a government independent from the Roman

Empire. Their revolt in 409 was unparalleled in the West.[5]

Independence did not mean,

however, that affairs in Britain were separate from those on the continent. In 429, the Church

became involved in the Pelagian heresy on the island. This coincided with the military affairs of

the Roman general Aetius in Armorica, the Gallic province across the channel from Britain. In

the late 440s the Britons pleaded to this same Aetius for Roman help in their fight against

barbarian incursions, and by the time of his death, the last chance for Roman involvement

disappeared. The independent British government of 409, succumbing to a variety of internal and

external pressures, transformed into an island of petty kingdoms ruled by Gildas s famous

tyrants, marking the end of the civitatesperiod.

[6]

This paper will look at some of the political,economic, religious, and military aspects of this historical process.

No Longer Obeying the Romans Laws

The history of the independent Brittonic kingdoms begins in the late fourth century. In 383 the

Roman usurper Magnus Maximus left Britain, according to Gildas, deprived of all her soldiery

and armed bands, of her cruel governors and of the flower of her youth, who went with

Maximus, but never again returned.[7]

While Gildas s account of the extent of the Romandeparture has been called into question, there is no doubt that Maximus s usurpation had

weakened the defenses of the island.[8]

The increased Pictish activity in this period, described by

Gildas[9]

and supported by other evidence,[10]

is a symptom of the weakened state of the Roman

military situation. Curiously, Maximus death in 388 did not end his involvement in British

history. By the ninth century, Maximus s name appears at the head of several Brittonic royal

genealogies. According to David Dumville, He appears both as the last Roman emperor in

Britain and as the first ruler of an independent Britain, from whom all legitimate power flowed a

pleasing irony, in view of his actual history as a usurper.[11]

A further weakening of the Roman defenses in Britain occurred at the end of the century. The

first of the Pictish wars reported by Gildas continued multos annos until389-90. In 398 the

Vandal general Stilicho, answering a call for help from the Britons, fought a campaign against

the Picts. In 401, however, he was forced to return to Italy in response to the threat posed by

8/11/2019 mummey_k

3/15

Alaric.[12]

His departure with the legions marks a turning point at least some of the island, such

as the area around Chester, would never again experience Roman military presence.

The revolt that began in 406 hastened the end of Roman Britain and ushered inthe civitatesperiod. The previous thirty-five years had placed a great deal of stress on the Roman

military and political structure on the island. Thompson has noted that we know more about the

years 406-410 than we know about any other quinquennium of Romano-British history, apart

from the periods that Tacitus describes for us.[13]

In 406 the soldiers in Britain revolted, raising a

certain Marcus to the purple. We don t know why the legions were compelled to rebel or why

they chose Marcus. The increase in Irish raiding activity in the south in 405 (attributed to Niall of

the Nine Hostages) may have contributed to the unease of the depleted garrison.[14]

Lack of pay

there had been no imperial issue sent to the island since 402 is another likely cause of

discontent.[15]

The bleak prospect of being stationed in the periphery during a time of crisis in the

center of the empire likely compelled the soldiers to look for a leader who would take them backto the continent.

The events on the continent at the end of 406 provided a clear motive for the British revolt. On

December 31, a force of Alans, Vandals, and Suevis crossed the frozen Rhine, overwhelming the

imperial and federate forces and making their way unimpeded into Gaul.[16]

In the early months

of 407, the British soldiers killed Marcus and appointed Gratian as their leader. He is described

by Orosius as municeps, some sort of civic official, perhaps a town councilor and member of the

aristocracy.

[17]

While his reign lasted only four months, and ended with his assassination, thepresence of a civic official as military commander is the first evidence indicating a representative

of the civitatesassumed a role previously filled by an imperial official. The reason for his murder

is unknown, but it is probable his reluctance to take troops across the channel led to his

demise.[18]

In early 407, the Germanic peoples were wreaking havoc in Gaul, and pressure continued to

mount on the island. Zosimus mentions that [The barbarians] became formidable even to the

armies in Britain, which, being afraid they might march against them, they drove to the point ofchoosing tyrants, the aforesaid Marcus and Gratianus and thereafter Constantinus [Constantine].[19]

Constantine is reported to have won the throne by virtue of his fortunate name (he would later

add the imperial name Flavius), but it seems more likely that the army was eager to replace the

town councilor with a soldier.[20]

By mid-407 more detailed accounts, and probably a good many

rumors, concerning the barbarians would have reached the island. As early as May 407,

Constantine crossed the channel with a field army estimated at 6,000, leaving only inferior

8/11/2019 mummey_k

4/15

frontier troops in Britain.[21]

The last Roman usurper in Britain had gone, and he had taken the

army with him.

While the details of Constantine s continental adventures are outside the scope of this paper, his

fortunes were in decline by 409, rendering him powerless to provide for the defense of thewestern provinces.[22]

When Gerontius, the British lieutenant whom he had left in control of

Spain, revolted in 408, the Britons were left to fend for themselves. Zosimus writes of this in oneof the most famous passages in early British history:

Gerontius was incensed and, winning over the troops there (in Spain) caused the

barbarians in Gaul to rise against Constantine. Since Constantine did not hold out

against these (the greater part of his strength being in Spain), the barbarians frombeyond the Rhine overran everything at will and reduced the inhabitants of the

British Island and some of the peoples in Gaul to the necessity of rebelling from

the Roman Empire and of living by themselves, no longer obeying the Romans

laws. The Britons, therefore, taking up arms and fighting on their own behalf,freed the cities from the barbarians who were pressing upon them; and the whole

of Armorica and other provinces of Gaul, imitating the Britons, freed themselves

in the same way, expelling the Roman officials and establishing a sovereignconstitution on their own authority. And the rebellion of Britain and of the

peoples in Gaul took place during the time of Constantine s usurpation &.[23]

Historians have long debated this passage, especially the cause and nature of the rebellion. The

question of cause is perhaps a bit easier. The Gallic Chronicle of 452 reports that the British

provinces were devastated by an incursion of the Saxons.[24]

Thus despite the problems

with Chronicle, we have an independent verification of a barbarian incursion.[25]

The island,

denuded of troops, administrators, and money, would have little choice but to look to its owndefense. Fighting barbarians is one thing; overthrowing even the vestiges of the empire is quite

another.

Here the history of Britain begins to depart from that of the continent. No other late imperial

province reacted in such a vigorous way to the barbarian incursions. Other histories and

hagiographies of the period recall the sufferings of the indigenous populations at the hands of the

invader, the curious inertness of the locals, and their inability to organize resistance.

Olympiodorus recalls that the Romans in Spain fled to their walled cities and put up with thehorrors of cannibalism. He says nothing of active defense.

[26]So why did the Britons act in such

a manner? Understanding the causes of this revolt in Britain tells about the character of the island

in 410 and the shape that it took in the several decades that followed. E. A. Thompson put

forward the idea of a peasant revolt against landowners and civic officials, not merely against the

Romans, similar to the bacaudae of Gaul.[27]

He sees it as a social rebellion, not just a political

one. It is a persuasive argument, especially considering Zosimus reference to the bacaudic revolt

8/11/2019 mummey_k

5/15

in Armorica, which was not crushed until 417, as imitating the revolt in Britain.[28]

However,

there is nothing in the written or archaeological record to indicate a massive peasant uprising. In

fact, urban archaeological finds indicate the contrary. Excavations at Silchester, Wroxeter, and

Canterbury give evidence of prosperity and continuity that make the case for a violent overthrow

problematic.[29]

Also, the class nature of the bacaudae themselves has been called into question,

and this further clouds the idea of a Late Antique class war.[30]

Others turn to religion and its effect on the civitatesas the cause of this singular revolt. J.N.L.

Myres suggests that the Pelagian ideas of social justice, self-reliance, and devotion to personal

freedom won wide acceptance among the British elites, and that their unique display of initiative

was an unleashing of long pent up desires for a way of life free from Roman tyranny and

corruption.[31]

In this scenario, the revolt of the civitatesis a high-status revolt, a prudent step by

Pelagian landowners who had ejected the corrupt administration of Constantine for having failed

to protect them from the barbarians.[32]

This group of well-to-do landowners, in Myres sargument, provides support for this movement for another twenty years, when they concern the

Church enough to inspire the visit of Saint Germanus.[33]

Despite the fact that later scholarship

has shown that the Pelagian movement did not have the social and political aims suggested by

Myres, the strong evidence of wealthy Pelagians during this period speaks to unique social

conditions on the island.[34]

The survival of a heretical segment of the population speaks to a

civil administration that is acting (or not acting) in a manner distinct from its late Roman

counterpart on the continent.

Kenneth Dark, on the other hand, suggests that the revolt was a low status Christian revolt. He

sees a connection between the new militancy centered around Martin of Tours, the disappearance

of pagan artifacts, and the change in villa status to paint a picture of a revolt of a newly

invigorated Christian population against a pagan elite.[35]

This argument rests on shaky ground.

The evidence for Martinian militancy relies on a visit to the island by Victricius of Rouen, the

content of which is unknown, and the fact that Constantine s son Constans may have been a

monk. It is impossible to assess what influence this new movement in the Gallic Church may

have had in Britain. The archaeological evidence concerning the change in villa status suggests a

decline in the economy of Britain in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, and need not be tied

to a religious movement.[36]

Religion may have played a part in the revolt of the civitatesit ishard to imagine a significant political event in the fifth century not being influenced by the

Church and its followers. However, the recent history of the Roman inability to provide peace

and security on the island is the more critical element here, in that it created a political situation

in which organized self-defense was seen as necessary for survival.

8/11/2019 mummey_k

6/15

We return then to the civitates. The fact that the revolt cropped the administration down to

the civitateslevel indicates that they became the most important form of political organization in

Britain after the revolt.[37]

The civitateswere the building blocks of imperial organization, their

taxes in money and in kind supporting the imperial superstructure.[38]

The rest of the imperial

administration had been cleared off the island. The head of the army, Constantine III, was gone,

and earlier many Roman administrators left with Stilicho. The Vicarius,who in Britain was both

the chief military and civil official, was not present. If he had been, he would have organized the

defense.[39]

Zosimus does not even bother to mention him. It is clear that the expelled Roman

officials were of the provincial hierarchy. For the civitatesto organize a defense against the

barbarians, it was first necessary to expel the Roman officials and the system of rules and

practices designed to keep military power in the hands of the Empire.[40]

In 410 the emperor

Honorius sent a letter to the Britons bidding them to take precautions on their own behalf.[41]

While the letter has been the subject of some debate, it is now considered to be genuine.[42]

Its

audience is what is of interest: Zosimus tells that Honorius wrote to the cities of Britain.[43]

They

appear to have written a letter or letters informing him of their measures for self-defense, and hisresponse implies Imperial consent to those measures. The letter indicates that at least some of the

officials on the island anticipated a return of the Empire, and felt it necessary to maintain

communications with Ravenna.[44]

In 410, the civitatessuccessfully organized a defense, saw to

the administration of daily matters, and conducted foreign affairs. It is regrettable for the

historian that there is virtually no written record for the next two decades.

The Warrior Bishop

Fortunately, the Gallic chronicler Prosper of Aquitaine provides a reliably dated event that gives

a glimpse of life in the third and fourth decades of the century, with the visit to the island by

Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus, Bishop of Troyes, in 429. After reporting of the

corruption of the British churches by the Pelagian bishop Agricola, Prosper remarks that at the

persuasion of the deacon Palladius, Pope Celestine sent Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, as his

representative, and having rejected the heretics, directed the British to the catholic faith.[45]

Despite the characteristically cryptic nature of Prosper s chronicle entry, he is an unusually

good source, writing in 433, only four years after the event. Curiously, Palladius and the Pope

sent a Gallicbishop to deal with the problems of the church in Britain, indicating that there wasno one on the island, lay or ecclesiastical, that had the authority to take care of a heresy. By this

time both Roman law and Catholic doctrine clearly opposed to Pelagianism and empowered

citizens and clerics to punish the heretics.[46]

Yet there is no evidence that anyone in Britain did

so prior to Germanus s visit. The ecclesiastical administration did not seem to have the power to

do so. This could indicate several things, most likely the strength of those landowners loyal to

Pelagianism and the growing lack of communication between the British and Roman churches.

8/11/2019 mummey_k

7/15

Civic power was also curiously uninvolved. Civic officials were apparently unaware of

Germanus s visit and do not take part in the debates between Germanus and the Pelagian

officials. As Thompson points out, where else in the Western world were civic officials not

involved in matters so vital to the Church?[47]

The British civil and ecclesiastical administrations

appear to have been on a decidedly different course from that of the continent.

Germanus s visit coincided with imperial success in northern Gaul. The Roman general Aetius

established himself as the greatest military power in the west between the years 425 and 432. In

429 he campaigned along the Rhine, in 430 in Raetia, in 431 in Noricum. In 432 he was awarded

a consulship. The military successes of Aetius and the missions of Germanus to Britain and

Palladius to Ireland occur in the same years. While there is no evidence of coordination between

the Church and Empire at this period, it seems likely given their common interests in the region.

The connection between events in Armorica and Britain during the rebellion of 409 is clear, as

was another one in 446. As with the events of 410, events in Britain in 429 connected closely toevents on the continent, even if the island was beginning to go its own way.

[48]

The story of Germanus s exploits on the island is contained in the Vita sancti Germani of

Constantius of Lyon.[49]

Historians who do not dismiss Vitaas being only of interest as a

hagiography have found several intriguing details concerning life in Britain in the 420s.[50]

This

mission is unique, the first recorded instance of a pope sending a representative over there,

outside the Empire.[51]

In twenty short years Britain spun far enough away from the Roman orbit

to be considered a foreign nation in need of papal correction. When Germanus and Lupus arrivedin Britain they were met by multitudes who had heard of their coming via rumor.[52]

That civic

officials were among the surprised multitudes at the site of Germanus s landings indicates they

were not aware of his mission. The two prelates began to preach, not only in the churches, but at

the crossroads, in the fields, and in out-of-the-way parts of the countryside.[53]

Constantius

reports nothing of the cities, nor of the civitates or the old Roman provinces. He speaks only

vaguely of regions in which Germanus was preaching.[54]

Constantius is very specific when he

reports of political affairs and cities on the continent. That he does not speak of the cities in

Britain does not mean they were absent in the 420s, but may be an indication that their influence

was waning.[55]

In any case, by the 480s Constantius had no knowledge of their importance, and

there was no one alive that could have told him otherwise.

The hallelujah victory highlights the absence of another important Late Antique figure on

the island, that of the warrior bishop. Constantius says a force of Saxons and Picts had joined

forces to make war upon the Britons.[56]

Germanus took control of the army and by

employing tactics characteristic of late Roman military strategy led his troops in an ambush

8/11/2019 mummey_k

8/15

of the invaders. After stationing the Britons on the rim of a valley through which the invaders

were marching, he has them shout hallelujah three times. The echo of this mighty roar is said

to have sent the Picts and Saxons in flight, and the Britons were awarded a bloodless victory.

The veracity of this story has been discussed elsewhere.[57]

It may also tell as much about

Constantius s Gaul as it does about Germanus s Britain. However, the fact that a foreign

bishop took it upon himself to organize the British defenses suggests that no such figure

existed on the island.[58]

This is a major departure from the continent. The Late Antique

bishops in Gaul were usually from the Roman administrative class and were vital in the

preservation of order in the fifth century. They were a crucial component in the transition

from the Roman Empire to the barbarian kingdoms. Their administrative and military

capabilities were vital in the preservation of city life in the west. Yet in Britain, no one

similar to a Caesarius of Arles appears in the historical record.[59]

Nor does archaeology

provide conclusive evidence of the Late Antique cathedral-based cities in Britain similar to

those that formed on the continent. The absence of Late Antique warrior-bishops may indeed

be an important reason for their absence.

Constantius introduces a number of individuals on the island who may help piece together a

few more facts about British life. The Pelagians that Germanus meets are described as

wealthy and powerful, indeed flaunting their wealth, in dazzling robes, surrounded by a

crowd of flatterers.[60]

These may well be those wealthy landowners who took part in the

rebellion of 409. Regardless, the depiction of wealth on the island may speak to a temporary

economic upturn that would have occurred in the absence of oppressive Roman taxation,

before Saxon activity became significant enough to have a disruptive effect on British

society. Despite their entourage and wardrobe, Germanus thoroughly defeated and eventually

exiled the Pelagians, revealing their lack of political power and prestige on the island.[61]

The two civic officials that Constantius mentions provide a small window into the

administration of the island. On his first visit Germanus meets a man of tribunican power.[62]

It is important that Constantius did not give him an exact title. His power was likethat of

a tribune; Constantius was groping for a description that his audience, still familiar with

Roman administration, would understand. This official was not Roman and was not acting in

a Roman manner. He is not interested in the heresy, only in the power of Germanus to heal

his daughter.[63]

The second administrator was a certain Elafius, described as a chief man of

the region. Again, he was accorded no Roman title or connected to any Roman administrative

unit. He was similarly interested in Germanus s healing powers, and there is no indication of

his involvement in the Pelagian controversy.[64]

That there is no evidence of a civic official

on the island who takes part in Germanus s efforts is strange. It would be difficult to find a

parallel on the continent, considering the civic and ecclesiastical obsession with heresy

during the late antique period. The government of the British civitatesoperated without some

of the individuals, institutions, and ideological concerns that shaped life on the continent.

8/11/2019 mummey_k

9/15

The Groans of the Britons

So the miserable remnant sent off a letter again, to Aetius. To Aetius three times

consul, the groans of the Britons . And further on: the barbarians push us to the

sea, the sea pushes us back to the barbarians; between these two kinds of death,

we are either slaughtered or drowned.[65]

This plaintive cry, first reported by Gildas and later by Bede, paints a far bleaker picture of

Britain in the late 440 s than the vigorous, self-reliant society of 409 depicted by Zosimus.

What happened that the citizens of Britain would send such a letter to the Empire? The last

section of this paper will look at some of the factors, both internal and external, that brought

our civitatesperiod to a close.

It would be a mistake to imagine the Britons speaking with one voice. We have seen the

activity of a pro-imperial party in the missions of Germanus and in the letter to Aetius in the

late 440s. Later, in the 460s, the British general Riothamus led an army of several thousand

exiles in Gaul.[66]

The failure of civic officials in Britain to provide peace and security, as

well as the desire for a significant section of the society to return to the Empire, indicates a

society divided and under considerable stress. The exiles to Armorica likely took with them a

great deal of treasure and administrative expertise. The differences between those Britons

with local interests and those with imperial interests were becoming more pronounced by the

middle of the century.

Archaeological evidence helps fill in the picture of a society under stress. The evidence for

urban continuity is the subject of considerable debate, but there is agreement on a few points.

Building with stone appears to have died out in the early fifth century, and evidence of

mosaics disappears at this time.[67]

The pottery industry also drastically contracted in this

period, changing from a large scale manufacturing and trading operation to a purely local

one, possibly centered around the villa.[68]

The money economy was also in decline. The

legions, probably removed most of the gold from the island, leaving the British economy

with Theodosian bronze coinage. By the 440s this supply would have been considerably

worn. Supplies of silver also disappeared; hoarding and Saxon plunder are the most likely

causes.[69]

Independent civic government would have been difficult to maintain given these

stresses on the society and the opportunities for local strongmen became greater. While there

is evidence for the continued importance of the former Roman provincial capitols,

the civitates seem to take on a purely defensive function. The decay of the Roman

infrastructure, the decline and irrelevance of the cities, the disappearance of economic

activity, and the lack of a formidable ecclesiastical structure combined by the 440s to create

8/11/2019 mummey_k

10/15

an unstable political situation on the island. The coming of the Saxons and the imperial

situation on the continent heralded the end of an era, and it is to these developments that we

now turn.

TheAdventus Saxonum marked the beginning, or at least the rapid acceleration of, the

process in which British society broke apart into the petty tyrannies made famous by Gildas.

The Gallic Chronicle of 441 reports: The British provinces, which to this time had suffered

various defeats and misfortunes, are reduced to Saxon rule.[70]

The Chronicleof 511 adds an

even more cryptic note: Britain abandoned by the Romans passed into the power of the

Saxons.[71]

The chronological problems of the Chronicles have been previously

noted.[72]

What is important here is that the Saxon presence is having a dramatic enough

effect on the island to be noted on the continent. There is evidence of warlords (exemplified

by the pseudo-historical Vortigern) inviting large numbers of Saxons to aid in their conflicts

against Pictish raiders (and probably other warlords.) The military situation obviously

changed since 409, when the Britons provided for their own defense.

Despite the fact that the Saxons werenow acting as foederates, there is no evidence of the

regulated system of hospitalitas that existed in Gaul and Italy. On the continent barbarian

kings were given a stake in the land in return for its defense. That land was administered by

former Roman officials, much as they had in the days of the empire.[73]

These administrators

had long since left, or been expelled, from Britain. With no personal interest in defending

former imperial territory, the Saxons were compelled to seize the land for themselves. The

system of payments from the British eventually broke down. The wars of the Saxon federates

began. Gildas reports that the barbarians plundered from sea to sea.[74]

The Britons suffered

from a famine which compelled many of them without delay to yield themselves up to theircruel prosecutors while others hid in the woods and mountains and continue a kind of

guerilla war.[75]

Gildas s dramatic description does not depict the situation on the whole of

the island but it does indicate a new political reality.[76]

The wealthy society of 429 seems

already a distant memory.

The last chance for the Romans to intervene in Britain was in 447-8. The consul Aetius was

in Armorica dealing with another revolt, and it is at this time, I believe, the Britons wrote him

their famous letter.[77]

A party on the island still had a stake in the Roman Empire. British

society was crumbling from both internal and external pressures, as we have seen. The

sovereign government reported by Zosimus was no longer tenable. But no help would be

coming from the Empire. Aetius s death in 455 marked the end of British involvement in the

imperial orbit, and the next one hundred fifty years heralded the development of the Anglo-

Saxon kingdoms in the east and the Celtic kingdoms in the west of the island.[78]

While we

can not be sure how long the civitateswere able to provide for their own defense, or when

8/11/2019 mummey_k

11/15

warlords first appear on the British political landscape, the fact the Romans can no longer

intervene signals an inevitable end.

Gildas, writing in the first decades of the sixth century, knew little of the events of the late

fourth and early fifth centuries. His memory of the Romans is one of harsh persecutions and

a usurper named Magnus Maximus. He was ignorant of Germanus, Pelagianism, and

Constantius Life, which was probably written around the time of his birth. To him the

eastern part of the island was a Saxon terra incognita.He knew nothing of the thousands of

exiles who fled the island and established a new life in Armorica.[79]

Despite evidence of his

Latin education, Gildas s world was small. He was concerned with the morals and behavior

of a few tyrants, Celtic warlords who had seized power in the west of the island. The society

of the Britons of 409 had vanished from the historical memory, its people and their struggles

and accomplishments lay silent. The Late Antique world of the civitateswas gone. The age

of Gildas was, to use Christopher Snyder s phrase, an age of tyrants.[80]

The author would like to acknowledge Professor Jarbel Rodriguez for his patience, and Lynn

Slobodien, without whose help this paper would have been impossible. Thanks.

1Gildas, On The Ruin of Britain, ed. and trans. J.A. Giles [book on-line] II.2 (1999). Available

from the On-line Resource Book for

MedievalStudies,http:// www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gildas-full.html; Internet.[2]

David Dumville s Sub-Roman Britain: History and Legend presents an elegant argument

against using myth as history, especially the Arthurian myths. He writes, the fact of the matter isthat there is no historical evidence about Arthur; we must reject him from our histories and,

above all, from the titles of our books, History62 (1977), 173-192.[3]

Ian Wood, The Fall of The Western Empire and the End of Roman Britain, Britannia18

(1987): 251.[4]Some have stretched this period even further. Kenneth Dark saw a strong Roman continuity

until the late eighth century. Civitas to Kingdom (London and New York: Leicester University

Press, 1994). In a later work, he amended his end date for the period to the defeat of Cadwallonof Gwynedd in 633. He cites this as the end of any aspirations of returning to a unified British-

ruled Britain. This is, in my opinion, far too late. The British kingdoms from their inceptions

lacked the material culture and the political will for anything like unification to be possible.Dark,Britain and the End of the Roman Empire (Charleston, S.C: Tempus, 2000), 229.

8/11/2019 mummey_k

12/15

[5]E. A. Thompson, Britain, A.D. 406-410. Brittania 8 (1977): 303-318. A classic introduction

with the characteristic Thompson flair.[6]

Gildas, The Ruin, III.27. Britain has kings, but they are tyrants &. For a closer at the early

British tyrants of Gildas, see David Dumville, Gildas and Maelgwn: Problems of Dating,

in Gildas: New Approaches, ed. Dumville and Lapidge (Woodbridge: Suffolk, 1984),85-106.[7]

Gildas, The Ruin, II.14.[8]P.J. Casey, Magnus Maximus in Britain: a reappraisal, in The End of Roman Britain, ed. P.J.

Casey (Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1979),66-79.[9]

Gildas, The Ruin,II.15.[10]

Mollie Miller, Stilicho s Pictish War, Britannia 6 (1975): 141-145. An excellent use of the

poet Claudian to fill in the blanks left by Gildas.[11]

Dumville, Sub-Roman Britain, 180.[12]

Miller, Stilicho, 145.[13]

Thompson, 406-410, 303.[14]

Peter Salway,Roman Britain (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 317.

A useful discussion of the connection between the policies of Honorius and Stilicho and their

effect on the rebellion of 406.[15]Salway,Roman Britain,316. Salway provides a variety of explanations for the lack of Roman

payment after 402, but I agree with him that the best explanation is that Honorius was strappedfor cash, and simply could no longer pay the troops in Britain. The famous Honorian rescript

may have been a formal recognition of a long-standing imperial policy.[16]

Shepard Frere,Britannia (London and New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987), 353-375; Thompson, 406-410, 303; J.F. Drinkwater, The Usurpers Constantine III and Jovinus,

Britannia29 (1998): 271. Michael Kulikowski has recently revived the argument that the

crossing took place on 31 December 405. While his argument rests on fixing Prosper schronicle, a dangerous proposition, moving the barbarian incursion to 405 solves the problem

of motive for the first legionary revolt in Britain in 406. Barbarians in Gaul, Usurpers in Britain,Brittania 31 (2000): 325-332.[17]Municepshas also been translated as inhabitant of a place and Gratian could therefore have

been a soldier, Kulikowski, Barbarians, 332.[18]

Thompson, 406-410, 305, points out that scholars have been eager to guess at the motives forthe murders of Marcus and Gratian, despite the complete lack of evidence. The Roman Legions

desire to leave for the continent in the wake of the news of the invasions remains our best guess.[19]

Zosimus,New History, trans. James J. Buchanan and Harold T. Davis, in The Saxon

ShoreVI.3 (2001).[20]

Drinkwater, The Usurpers, 272.[21]

Drinkwater, The Usurpers, 275.[22]

Drinkwater, The Usurpers, 269-287. This section includes an extremely useful synthesis of

recent scholarship.[23]Zosimus,New History, VI.5. Zosimus is considered to be using the work of Olympiodorus ofThebes for this period. For an excellent introduction to Olympiodorus see J.F. Matthews,

Olympiodorus Of Thebes And The History Of The West (A.D. 407-425), Journal of Roman

Studies 60 (1970) 79-97. For Zosimus see E. A. Thompson, Zosimus on the End of Roman

Britain, Antiquity30 (1956), 163-167.[24]

The Gallic Chronicle of 452[book on-line] in Welsh History: Historical Texts; available from

http:// www.webexcel.ndirect.co.uk/gwarnant/hanes/texts/textsgallic.htm; Internet.

8/11/2019 mummey_k

13/15

[25]The reliabilty of the Chronicleshas been exhaustively debated. For the affirmative, see M.E.

Jones and P.J. Casey, The Gallic Chronicle restored: a chronology for the Anglo-Saxon invasionsand the end of Roman Britain, Britannia 19 (1988): 367-398. For the negative, see R.W.

Burgess, The Dark Ages return to fifth century Britain: the restored Gallic Chronicle exploded,

Britannia 21 (1990): 185-196. Burgess dismisses the Chronicleas often a mess and doubts that

it reflects what was going on in Britain in 441. I believe the Chronicle to be valuable despite itsflawed chronology. For a good overview, see Steven Muhlberger, The Gallic Chronicle of 452

and its Authority for British events, Britannia 14 (1983): 23-33.[26]

Thompson, 406-410, 313-314, from Olympiodorus, frag. 40[27]

Thompson, 406-410, esp. pp. 314-16. For background on peasant revolts see J. F.

Drinkwater, The Bacaudae of Fifth Century Gaul. In Fifth Century Gaul: a crisis ofidentity?, ed. J.F. Drinkwater and Hugh Elton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).[28]

Thompson, 406-410, 314-316. An argument he stayed with throughout his distinguished

career. The history of Armorica in this period and its relevance to Britain needs more

exploration.[29]

Christopher Snyder,An Age of Tyrants (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University

Press, 1998), 137-163. A thorough look at contemporary Romano-British archaeology.[30]J. F. Drinkwater, The Bacaudae of Fifth Century Gaul, 213. The author argues that fleeing

the land was a choice open to lesser aristocrats and gentry. I agree with him that peasants wouldhave been too psychologically and economically tied to the land to flee to the bacaudae.[31]

J.N.L. Myres, Pelagius And The End Of Roman Rule In Britain, Journal of RomanStudies 50 (1960): 32. The article begins with a good, concise explanation of Pelagianism.[32]

Myres, Pelagius, 33.[33]

Myres, Pelagius, 34. Myres s assertion that the whole circumstances of Germanus visits both

in 429 and in the 440 s show that the movement had attained such political authority in Britain asto be thought a serious menace to the orthodox regime in Gaul & is an exaggeration of

conditions in both territories. Neither Constantius or Prosper speaks of the situation in the Gallicor British churches as being menaced or even seriously threatened.[34]W. Liebeschutz, Did the Pelagian Movement Have Social Aims?, Historia 12 (1963): 227-

241.[35]

Dark, Civitas to Kingdom, 55-57.[36]

Salway,Roman Britain,347-348.[37]

Drinkwater, The Usurpers, 286.[38]

Drinkwater, The Usurpers, 295-6.[39]

Myres, Pelagius, 32-33.[40]

See Zosimus s account, above, p. 6.[41]

Zosimus,New History, VI.10.[42]

Drinkwater, The Usurpers, 286.[43]

Italics mine.[44]Salway,Roman Britain, 330. While the rescript is often used as evidence of a little Britainparty still loyal to the emperor, Salway has adroitly pointed out that it may have been no more

than a readiness to barter submission to imperial authority in return for assistance.[45]

Prosper, Chroniclein Snyder,Age of Tyrants, 38.[46]

E.A. Thompson, St. Germanus of Auxerre and the End of Roman Britain, (Suffolk: Boydell,1984), 28-9. Thompson points out a law of Honorius dated 30 April 418 that empowered anyone

8/11/2019 mummey_k

14/15

to arrest and bring to trial those suspected of the heresy. It is somewhat curious that this law did

not make it into the Theodosian Code and may indicate the short life of Pelagianism.[47]

Thompson, St. Germanus, 27. Throughout the entire sequence of events during both of

Germanus visits, the British rulers are simply not there. Of all the oddities of history of Britain

at this time, none is more surprising than this.[48]

Ian Wood, The Fall of The Western Empire and the End of Roman Britain, Britannia 18(1987): 252.[49]

Constantius of Lyon, Vita sancti Germani, ed. and trans. Thomas Noble and Thomas Head,

in Vortigern Studies(2001).[50]

Ian Wood, The End of Roman Britain: Continental Evidence and Parallels, in Gildas: New

Approaches,6-11. The author takes a wary look at theLife, closely examining the balance of fact

and allegory. His opinions are powerful and should be kept in mind by anyone usingConstantius as a resource for British history.[51]

In locis suis; see Thompson, St. Germanus, 7.[52]

Constantius, Vita, Chapter 14. Constantius uses the more poetic whose coming had been

foretold by the enemies of souls.[53]

Constantius, Vita, Chapter 14.[54]Thompson, St.Germanus, 8-9.[55]

For an excellent look at the late antique city, see W. Liebeschutz, The End of the AncientCity, in The City in Late Antiquity,ed. John Rich, (London: Routledge, 1992), 1-49. For Gildas s

famous statement on the cities see Phillip Dixon, The cities are not as populated as they once

were, in Rich, The City.[56]

Constantius, Vita, Chapter 17.[57]

Michael E. Jones, The History of the Alleluja Victory, Albion18.3 (Fall 1986): 363-373. The

article provides an excellent look at late Roman military strategy. Jones makes a strong case forGermanus s military background.[58]

Jarbel Rodriguez questions this assumption, suggesting that Germanus may simply have hadmore status and was acting in his role as a papal legate. However, relations between the Gallic

Church and Rome were strained at this time, and Germanus relationship to the Pope is unclear.

See R.W. Mathiesen, Hilarius, Germanus, and Lupus: The Aristocratic Background of the

Chelidonius Affair, Phoenix 33 (1979): 160-9.[59]

William Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles: Life, Testament, Letters, (Liverpool: Liverpool

University Press, 1994).[60]

Constantius, Vita, Chapter14.[61]

Constantius, Vita, Chapter 14. Thompson, St. Germanus suggested that the British bishops

themselves had joined the heresy, and that is why we do not meet them in Vita. If this is so, it is

hard to imagine a British church surviving after their expulsion from the island in the 430s. Thatthere is no evidence in the writings of Patrick or Gildas of Pelagianism makes it unlikely that

Pelagianism was that pervasive.[62]Constantius,Vita,Chapter 15.[63]

Thompson, St. Germanus, 26.[64]

Constantius, Vita, Chapter 26. Thompson, St. Germanus, 7, 26-28.[65]

Gildas, The Ruin, II.20. Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People,ed. and trans.

McClure and Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 25.[66]

Wood, The Fall, 261. Snyder,Age of Tyrants, 83.[67]

Snyder,Age of Tyrants,153-154. Dark, Civitas,174-178. Frere,Britannia,365-366.

8/11/2019 mummey_k

15/15

[68]Frere,Britannia, 365.

[69]Frere,Britannia, 363-366. C.H.V. Sutherland Coinage in Britain in the Fifth and Sixth

Centuries, inDark Age Britain, ed. D.B. Harden (London: Methuen, 1956), 3-10.[70]

Chronicle, Theodosius II XVIII/XVIIII[71]

Chronicle of 511, Theodosius II XVI[72]

See above, 7.[73]Walter Goffart,Barbarians and Romans, (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1980). This text

includes a detailed discussion of the accommodation of the barbarian kingdoms. See

Thompson, St. Germanus, 110-111 for the absence of such a system in Britain. For a discussionof what system of accommodation was being used, and what Gildas knew about it, see

Thompson, Gildas and the History of Britain, Britannia 10 (1980): 217-218.[74]

Gildas, The Ruin, II.24.[75]

Gildas, The Ruin, II.25.[76]

Thompson, Gildas for a discussion of the problems of where Gildas was writing and what

part of Britain he was writing about. See also David Dumville, The Chronology of De Excidio

Britanniae, Book I, in Gildas, New Approaches.[77]

Michael E. Jones The Date of the Letter to the Britons to Aetius, Bulletin of the Board ofCeltic Studies 37 (1990): 281-290, suggests an earlier date. Bede, following Gildas, placed the

event in 446. Bede,EH, 25.[78]

See Salway,Roman Britain, 333-353, for a similar perspective.[79]

Thompson,St.Germanus, 115.[80]

Snyder,Age of Tyrants, especially preface.