Arthur's dykes

[Jim Webster]

The trouble is that the 'North British' could be seen as dwellers in what was the 'military zone', the area where there was most likely to be Roman units with engineering capability

But how would we see them having hegemony in what will become Cambridgeshire, Essex and Kent?

what I was driving at was that the capability to do engineering of that sort doubtless existed in the north, the fact we don't seem to have vast numbers of dikes may be because of natural geography providing plenty of boundary features anyway

[Andreas Johansson]

Regarding the Notitia, assuming there was a British field army in the 420s, is there strong reason to assume it was necessarily in Britain? 200 years later, the armies of Thrace and the East kept their names when they were relocated to Asia Minor.

[Justin Swanton]

There is a suggestion (and I cant for the life of me remember where the reference is from!) that Britannia was partially 'recovered' in around 417AD so if this was the case presumably some form of field army would have been present and limitanei of the coastal regions (re)organised...so maybe engineering experience around then.

Storr's assessment is that Britain officially remained part of the Roman Empire until about the middle of the 5th century (hence the reason the Britons would appeal to Aegidius for military help). There was no Roman abandonment of the island in the early 5th century, just - at the most - an affirmation by the Emperor that no additional units could be spared from the army on the continent to help restore order in Britain, as had been done by Theodosius in the previous century.

[Erpingham]

Thanks Justin.  So, the Gododdin as a military model either reflects practice beyond the Roman zone or later practice?  The dykes were built by regular troops (presumably limitanei?).   

[Justin Swanton]

Thanks Justin.  So, the Gododdin as a military model either reflects practice beyond the Roman zone or later practice?  The dykes were built by regular troops (presumably limitanei?).

As far as I know the Gododdin reflects later practice. It corresponds to what was happening on Hadrian's wall, where a barn was converted into a mead hall for the chief (former unit commander) and his men. That was at Housteads I think.

The dykes: all Storr affirms is that the construction of the earlier ones was overseen by Roman-trained engineers, of which you wouldn't need many per dyke (just one actually). Their actual construction wouldn't need skilled labour. The dykes in Kent - clearly constructed by Jutes as they face London - is evidence that those engineers did not necessarily work exclusively for the Romano-british regular army units, though the facing of the later dykes would suggest that they generally did. Dykes after, I think, the late 6th century show no signs of precision engineering.

[aligern]

There are two schools of thought here. One is that Roman units continue on in place after the imperial supply system , collection of taxes, purchase of food, transport  to military sites coloapses. In this vision local comnanders keep their units together and overawe or tax in kind enough supplies to feed thenmen and tgeir families.
In the other scenario, once the pay and food stop the army units very rapidly decay...like in weeks and the troops are demobilised because very few can be fed. That leaves room for commanders to become a somebody in the new world , but a somebody with  a bodyguard of 20-50 toughs, able to dominate a local city and its territories, not to keep together a unit if say 3-400 men.
In the latter scenario the units that can keep in being are  the limitanei and the foederati such as the Franks in Northern Gaul  or the Saxon settlements in Aremorica that respond to Aetius' call  because they are already settled in a direct relationship between food and military service.

With reference to the good point made about the continuance in name of Byzantine armies withdrawn to Asia Minor, it is significant that the troops are rapudly given a relationship with the land . Its the problem of armies once the link to tax and spend is broken...if you cannot feed the soldiers they are gone...probably in a week once stores run out. I suggest that this is what happened in Britain and that there was a rapid  degeneration from formed military units located strategically, but not near food, to small  groups of paramilitaries forjed  around large landowners and located on or near productive estates.
Roy

[Erpingham]

Possibly based on this Britannia article from the 1970s.

Though wikipedia notes earlier dissenters

"Certain scholars such as J. B. Bury ("The Notitia Dignitatum" 1920) and German historian Ralf Scharf, disagreed entirely with the standard chronology. They argued that the evidence in fact supports later Roman involvement in Britain, post 410. "

[nikgaukroger]

Possibly based on this Britannia article from the 1970s.

Though wikipedia notes earlier dissenters

"Certain scholars such as J. B. Bury ("The Notitia Dignitatum" 1920) and German historian Ralf Scharf, disagreed entirely with the standard chronology. They argued that the evidence in fact supports later Roman involvement in Britain, post 410. "

Personally I'd not put much weight on what was argued for/suggested a century ago. So much has moved on with archeology (not least in the amount of evidence available) and the understanding and interpreting of sources and finds since then - such as in the area of identity and how it is expressed.

[Erpingham]

Personally I'd not put much weight on what was argued for/suggested a century ago.

I'm not - just tracing the longevity of the idea.

[Anton]

The fellow at Housesteads was Brigomaglos.  He seems to have been a Brigantian/Bryneich man.  The name could be read as 'great among the Brigantes' or 'servant of the Brigantes'.  The latter would be serving in a high status position. 


I've always thought Brigomaglos would have been doing on what ever scale what Cunedda did.  Cunedda we should note seems to have been based well south of the Wall.

[Justin Swanton]

My own impression is that Britain remained technically part of the Empire for half, or even most, of the 5th century, but was in effect a self-governing diocese, in the same way Egypt remained technically part of the 19th century Ottoman Empire but was in fact autonomous. In time of dire need the autonomous province could call on the central imperial authority for help, but didn't have to give much in return.

I've already aired my view that the Roman army had a remarkable ability to survive independently of the political system it originally upheld, and in fact Roman military units existed in Gaul right up the the middle of the 6th century. I would hypothesize that the same thing took place in Britain, where the army seems to have had a certain autonomy from the shifting political landscape - Arthur makes perfect sense as a Roman military commander who could to a certain extent operate above the political rivalries around him. This may have come about from the fact that the Roman army was not politically subordinate to the Roman state, but only to the general who sat on the throne or who had rebelled against it.

[Imperial Dave]

My own impression is that Britain remained technically part of the Empire for half, or even most, of the 5th century, but was in effect a self-governing diocese, in the same way Egypt remained technically part of the 19th century Ottoman Empire but was in fact autonomous. In time of dire need the autonomous province could call on the central imperial authority for help, but didn't have to give much in return.

I've already aired my view that the Roman army had a remarkable ability to survive independently of the political system it originally upheld, and in fact Roman military units existed in Gaul right up the the middle of the 6th century. I would hypothesize that the same thing took place in Britain, where the army seems to have had a certain autonomy from the shifting political landscape - Arthur makes perfect sense as a Roman military commander who could to a certain extent operate above the political rivalries around him. This may have come about from the fact that the Roman army was not politically subordinate to the Roman state, but only to the general who sat on the throne or who had rebelled against it.

I'm in agreement Justin. There is some evidence for continuity at military sites at the Wall. Also if we extend the foederati reasoning, there is nothing to suppose that units based along these lines continued especially if they were in effect 'billeted' on or around major (SE) civitas capitals and/or agricultural bread baskets (literally!). This has been explored and proposed by several researchers/authors

[Erpingham]

Though we are again drifting from dykes, I think there are a number of questions bubbling up for me.

I am aware of Justin's earlier stated belief that regular Roman army units of essentially the same effectiveness persisted in Gaul long after the Roman presence.  Would the same be believed to apply in Britain?  Or would we be looking , as Roy suggests, of "legacy" units, diminished in size and supported on a subsistence basis by the civitates?  We certainly know archaeologically that their weren't massive amounts of coin available.  Where would these units be based?  In the towns?

Regarding Hadrian's Wall, we do have to think about what is going on there.  We do have signs of continuity, albeit it on a reduced scale.  But are they signs of a regular army presence or warlords descended from units which were essentially lost to the Empire in the late 4th century? 

[Anton]

We are drifting away from dykes but none of us seem to have anything more to say about them at the moment.

I find the Wall is interesting.  If in Cunedda's time he was hosting with the men of Bryneich was that just who defended his locality?  Were there still Roman regulars north and south of him?  Or had the defence already formally passed to what the Welsh later called the Men of the North?  Are the early Men of the North foederati?  If so who made the foedus?

If we consider an early Patrick then his letter to the soldiers of Coroticus seems to indicate that he sees them as part of the Roman world and expects that they should respond accordingly to his Roman Christian message. Coroticus was based well north of the Wall.

There was a powerful co-ordinating force in the North that held Cunedda accountable and it seems to have survived the break with Rome for sometime. 

[Justin Swanton]

I am aware of Justin's earlier stated belief that regular Roman army units of essentially the same effectiveness persisted in Gaul long after the Roman presence.  Would the same be believed to apply in Britain?  Or would we be looking , as Roy suggests, of "legacy" units, diminished in size and supported on a subsistence basis by the civitates?  We certainly know archaeologically that their weren't massive amounts of coin available.  Where would these units be based?  In the towns?

I think we need to take into account the implication of trained military engineers for much of the 6th century.* A milieu where engineering skills are being passed on from one generation to the next argues a professional military structure and not some post-Roman tribal warlord with a retinue of a couple dozen warriors.

Roy brought up the economics of supporting a military unit, but how much land do you need to support 300 men and/or their horses? A man needs about two acres (to be generous) of land to feed him adequately. So 300 men need 600 acres. Add 4 people per soldier to the mix: each man's wife and 3 children average, and then tack a few hundred servants to work the land and you get something like 2000 people in total. That's 4000 acres to feed everybody, or an area of land measuring 400 x 400 metres.

Horses: the sites I've seen recommend 1 1/2 acres - 2 acres per horse. Let's make that 4 acres. So 500 horses (300 mounts plus extra animals for breeding, replacement of sick mounts, etc.) needs 2000 acres. That's an additional piece of land measuring 300 x 300 metres. The local military unit, even if it has horses, doesn't need a lot of land or big infrastructure to support itself. Everything necessary can be within 500 metres of its fort.


*this is the part where I stick to the topic.