interesting article on the 'end of Roman Britain'

[Imperial Dave]

http://trac.org.uk/publications/pubs/trac1991/trac1991_67-78/#full-text-from-ocr-unformatted-included-for-search-purposes-only

its not exactly a newly written paper but is a nice concise account of the end of Roman Britain and the author;s take on the causes

[Patrick Waterson]

It does seem to combine a doctrinaire approach with a high degree of speculation:

"Marxist theory is used to suggest why British society changed so much during the fifth century."

"This paper is based on the Marxist assumption that the primary causes of social change are the contradictions between the forces of production and the relations of production ..."

And not, for example, the need to fight off ever-increasing numbers of warlike Picts, Irish and Germans without the benefit of resident legions.

Actually the paper seems to be mainly speculation which is then slanted towards Marxist theory.

"Gildas (22.2) refers to two famines and a plague in the earlier fifth century: 'a deadly plague ... in a short period laid low so many people . . . that the living could not bury all the dead.' There had been a climatic deterioration in the later Roman period, and regular pandemic diseases appear to have been encouraged by empire-wide trade and travel. It is likely that there was a significant fall in population, which could have been one reason for the settlement of joederati [sic] on under-populated land. Consequently, determinist factors may have weakened Romano-British society. On the other hand, such problems were not unique to fifth-<:entury Britain; there had been epidemics and pandemics during the Roman period. Climate and disease should be seen only as indirect causes of political instability."

"The Germanic immigrations, notably during the fifth century, gave scope for further racial conflict. Martin Millett (1990, 219ff.) has suggested that political authority became personal rather than constitutional during the fifth century. Consequently, whereas in Gaul the political framework could accommodate immigrant groups by, for example, the legalised transfer of lands, the personalised politics in Britain encouraged a more personal and inconsistent response to such immigrations into the local socio-economic systems, which were increasingly socially-embedded; in particular, there may have been some reluctance to accommodate the immigrant elites within the political superstructure. This may have resulted in tension developing against such constraints. Religion is another factor that should be considered, perhaps as a lateral tension."

Whatever 'a lateral tension' is supposed to mean.

The essence of his argument:

"Britain was lost by the empire for political rather than military reasons."

Somehow I am not convinced.  One could advance exactly the same reasonings, or rather speculations and dependent conclusions, about Illyria.

[Imperial Dave]

oh its speculative alright although the political aspect of the 'end' of Roman Britain has its merits (see Ken Dark's book!)

[Erpingham]

oh its speculative alright although the political aspect of the 'end' of Roman Britain has its merits (see Ken Dark's book!)

Given the number of discussions we've had on this recently, I'd be tempted to say anything on "the end of Roman Britain" tends to be speculative. At least in this case, the author recognises he is speculating.

[Anton]

An interesting read Dave, thank you.  The author says.

"The maintenance of the native aristocracy within the provincial system probably involved the continuation of the LPRIA socially-embedded economy."

I'd say that the evidence points to that being the case.  If that is so then we ask what was the legal underpinning that allowed such a society to exist and function?  We read the British reverted to their native laws or words to that effect-presumably the native system exerting itself after being submerged beneath the Roman one. This has implications for the shape of society, social structures and land holding. I can easily see this in the highland zone where Rome had been pretty much the military but it also seems to have been the case in the lowland zone.

Such a society would not easily lend itself to the "Marxist assumption that the primary causes of social change are the contradictions between the forces of production and the relations of production''. In fact such societies tended to change in direct response to external stimuli rather than rising internal tensions. The latter were channeled into a web of interlocking obligations and opportunities under a system designed to mimimise friction.

I struggle to see the actions of the British leaders we know of as any more 'personalised politics' than those of leading Gallo-Romans or indeed any Roman leaders we know in this period.

[Imperial Dave]

agreed Anton, continuity appears to be the model used as much as possible in political and economic means/measures and in some cases used successfully far more and far longer than previously proposed. 

[Anton]

Are you still enjoying Charles-Edwards?

[Imperial Dave]

its insightful and well written and so far hasnt felt to be too 'heavy' for me....a good sign. It is a BIG book though 

[Anton]

It's a whopper and could easily have been produced as three volumes.  I understand he viewed it as the synthesis of his lifetimes work.  I'm only sorry I came to his work so late in life there is so much to think about in what he gives us.

[Imperial Dave]

agreed. He shows depth of knowledge of the subject matter (so far that I have read) without being overbearing and also insightful plus open to reinterpretations of existing 'wisdom'

[aligern]

Read it and was not terribly impressed. I remember a conversation with Simon Elliott where he was talking about substantial Investment in rural industries and particularly waterways. This article does not seem to take any of that development into account. I don't much like the language which seeks to define one section of society as 'exploiters' and the larger part as sonehow their victims.  Of  course there are going to be examples where small farmers, fir exampke, are oppressed by bullying overlords, but often we do not know that, especially from archaeological evidence. It has been suggested that Bacaudae in Gaul might not be wholly composed of fleeing cultivators, but include the upper classes who were effectively in internal revolt and that Bacaudic groups carried on agriculture and defended themselves against central govt. tax collectors.
In terms of the pre conquest Britons and Gauls it appears that the social structure provided armies with cmitatus troops and mass forces of 'warriors' Even if we do not believein Caesar's or Tacitus' numbers for the barbarians the Romans were still opposed by mass armies. It does not appear that such mass tribal armies are resuscitated after the removal of formal imperial garrisons. Thst argues for a considerable change in the social relationships, as doe the employment by the Late Antique British elites of federate troops. That the Post Roman Britons might not be capable of fielding mass armies from their own resources might well only indicate that the populace is substantially unarmed, leaving the only paramilitary forces that estate owners maintained for internal security as effective frces. On the other hand, who were the pedyt? Who garrisoned the forts that were restored? Who are all these Britons that the AS Chronicle suggests are massacred at say the Saxon shore forts.  We just do not know how troops were raised and what social relationship it reflected.
Roy

[Anton]

Roy said "It has been suggested that Bacaudae in Gaul might not be wholly composed of fleeing cultivators, but include the upper classes who were effectively in internal revolt and that Bacaudic groups carried on agriculture and defended themselves against central govt. tax collectors."

I increasingly buy that argument. Faulkner who also went for a 'Marxist' approach spent a whole book arguing for a class revolt in Britannia but in terms of tangible evidence seemed only to have the Bacaudae of Gaul. We have no mention of Bacaudae in Britannia although we do have Dark's Martinian Christian revolution which deserves consideration.   

That said when the British revert to their own laws and set about the barbarians they are emulated in Gaul, notably in Amorica-something is going on.  If we can accept the argument that the Bacaudae are not (just?) a peasant revolt then the picture becomes a little clearer and it fits with Charles-Edwards view of a British continuum from the Forth to the Loire.

[aligern]

To relate this thread to the one on ethnogenesis.  One imagines that at the various points when imperial reach receded in the Western Empire the inhabitants of each area were faced with the problem of what they were. Alaric's Goths had little doubt what they were ( though they may only have been becoming Visigioths, the outside world lumped them as that, Similarly the Vandals went from two types of Vandal, the Alans and some Suebi and Goths to being the Vandals ( kingdom of Vandals and Alans) without too much angst. However, what was a Roman provincial? Stephen is very right that this throws up whole questions of who owns the land under what laws? What is the basis of authority? If we are all Dobunni then the Dobunnian landlord has some right to loyalty from those who till his land, there is community and precedence, but if we are still Romans then what is the legal authority of someone whose rights are enforceable by a state that exists here in name only. A major weakness of the Empire is that provinces and dioceses do not have much strong existence without an empure and an emperor, even though he did not spend his time dealing with local disputes. Looking at the law codes of Theodosius and Justinian it is coear that emperors took an interest in every court decision ( I don't mean they personally read them)
Gildas talk of tyrants implies a strong view of legitimacy...though that can be highly mutable. I do wonder if that meant different things in different parts of Britannia. In the Southern zone they could default from province down to civitas , probably quite easily, but with a problem if the situation spanned civitates, perhaps the need for a Virtigern like figure. On the frontiers the states organised  on a federate basis had constitutions issued and approved by Rome and local 'kings' who administered that law. It might be a specific Roman law. for federates like the Salic law, or it might be tribal law...though that is mire likeky in the areas not appertaining to land ownership and service. Which law would take place in a situation where your slave accidentally killed your neighbour's dog? Anyway I wonder how it worked in the lowland areas, where kings appointed to be like the kings of Bath, Gloucester and Cirencester killed at Dyrrham in 577, or did councils run the town? If the government defaulted to town councils in the East then that is a reason for easy conquest and Arthur. Easy conquest because individual town based statelets would be small enough for a few hundred East Saxons or South Angles to take out ( given that the civitates are NOT really tribal and do not have mass levy armies) and a reason for  an Arthur in that only by combining their aristocratic and federate forces under a neutral leader could the  civitates stand up to the aggressive infiltrators.
Roy

[Andreas Johansson]

A major weakness of the Empire is that provinces and dioceses do not have much strong existence without an empure and an emperor

From the centre's perspective, that's a feature and not a bug, because it gives the provincials an incentive not to try and go it alone.

[Anton]

 If we accept, and I think we should, the continuance of the native aristocracy under Roman rule albeit now subordinated then we might consider the different experiences they may have had.  Those who had been Roman allies from early on presumably did better than those who resisted or rebelled.  Even within a polity some aristos would have lost out to land confiscation (Forts, roads. mineral resources) while others kept what they had and as a consequence rose in status.  The winners in that situation end up running the civates.  So far, so good.

Then we might ask just what was the area of the civates?  Plainly it's not the entire former tribal territory because colonia, confiscations, the military, imperial estates and whatever else Rome wanted had to be deducted.  So, these are truncated polities.  Nor would they have enjoyed the same favour, access and prestige of the military, the colonia and imperial officials or lease holders.

Within native administered areas I expect native land holding patterns were maintained meaning the Rix Dubonni was for internal purposes a man lord rather than a landlord, although externally he may have acted as, and indeed actually been one. Across Britannia then we have a range of land holding tenures.  Again, so far so good-probably.

All this is then thrown into the air when the break with Rome occurs.  The military had it seems become largely British.  The imperial officials and the lessees presumably disappeared or attempted to accommodate to the new order. 

The colonia are interesting, they should have been bastions of the imperial order but I struggle to see that from my reading.  Perhaps the leading family established a dynasty, perhaps changes in the composition of the military and local politics had already re-integrated the ruling council into the political structure of the civates.

The other thing that comes to mind is that, in my view, the least powerful civates who had lost the most territory would have had the least access to a mass levy of fighting men.  I doubt the Iceni fared well post Boudicca both in terms of enslavement and loss of land and it was in their territory that the Anglians established themselves.