Arthur's dykes

[Imperial Dave]

There is no reason not to suppose your line of thinking Stephen...

It is loosely dyke related but my 2 penneth worth suggests the following:

369AD - Barbarian conspiracy and Theodosius recovers/creates province of Valentia (between the walls of Antoninus and Hadrian)

382/3AD Magnus Maximus (Macsen Wledig) (re)organises the British provinces possibly recinding control of Valentia to 'Men of the North' = effectively allied/Romanised tribes whilst on his continental expedition. He effectively 'retreats' Roman control to Hadrian's Wall and uses a mixture of the above with strategically placed (newly/extra introduced) Foederati (Germanics and Irish warriors) in place of 'Roman' regulars. He does the same in the West/Wales and in the East/South (mainly Germanics). I am also suggesting there were standard Roman units probably making up a mobile field army and so probably mainly cavalry.

407AD - Constantine does the same as the above but reduces the regular contingent and possibly adds to the Foederati and/or 'promotes' some of the longer term 'Britonised' existing Foederati to regular troops.

410AD - possible loss of the Diocese of Britain due to breakdown of the government. Foederati continue to patrol sectors assigned. Any regulars continue although possibly 'degrade' in effectiveness due to gradual loss of centrally controlled infrastructure. Some civitates start to 'go native' eg North of the Wall and possibly just below the Wall, Western seaboard and SW Britain so gives rise to local magnates and tribal leaders assuming control rather than centrally lead. Coins still in circulation but reliance on monetary economy shrinking

Circa 420AD +/- a few years, possible partial recovery of Britannia by centrally led 'Roman' administration and Field army, concentrating on the more civilised areas of central and SE. Tribal or Foederati leaders made 'officials' of Roman administration on the Fringes ie carry on chaps you're doing a fine job etc. Britain reorganised around Civitates since monetary and central control is effectively impossible at this time

430AD-450AD - possible permanent removal/loss or Roman Regulars and Civitates become self sufficient. Loose control of Central/South and SE by a Roman appointed/approved leader or Vicarius in the mould of a Vortigern type person. Possibly still other Roman appointed senior figures are around eg Comes/Dux Britannium and Comes Litoris Saxonici. Disagreements arise between these leaders leading to Civil War in that area. Rise of the 'first' Arthur type person to lead the fight possibly, Ambrosius Aurelianus using mainly 'local' troops versus Vortigern/Vortimer using mainly recently recruited Foederati. 4 battles major battles including Wallop etc. Leads to restoration of nominally (Post)Roman control of SE and re-distribution/dispersal of Foederati to effect defence but reduce capacity for trouble. Meanwhile in the North and West, 'nativisation' of the local troops controlled by local magnates/leaders. Gildas 'account' does potentially allow for this

450AD - end of the century - 2-3 generations of peace as suggested by Gildas. Central monetary system all but gone. Troops effectively billeted on local land that they effectively patrol. Civitates are effectively self sufficient and led by local magnates. Possibly a nominal central leader exists but has increasingly less control over these outside of his immediate civitates. Western Roman Empire has 'ended' so less need or requirement for Britain to be tied to the continent although factions for and against may arise into this vacuum. Thus Civitates are becoming increasingly hostile to one another and in the SE especially start building defences including dykes against one another to protect their interests. In the West and North, the de-Romanisation has been in effect for longer and so petty kingdoms have arisen before the SE.

500-550AD - return of civil wars (ref Gildas) although protagonists increasingly along West+North+Central vs South/East lines. Control of immigration of non aligned or Free Germanics decreases dramatically. Individual Civitates begin to assume/display certain cultural features. Even so, wars are fought along ideological and not necessarily strictly racial lines. Terms like Saxon could be used to denote an area of Britain rather than purely a racial term. eg 'Saxons' is a label applied to people of the Saxon Shore area not necessarily because they are Germanic in all facets (a bit like today's Midlanders or Londoners who are a diverse lot!). Potential culmination in this period with a 'second' Arthur type person and the rest of the battle list attributed to him and referenced by Gildas.

550AD-600AD - Rise of the Heroic Age and move towards kingdoms, racial/cultural solidification begins

Start of 7th Centruy onwards - racial/cultural identification increasingly solidified/codified and Welsh/British versus Anglo/Saxon more readily observable. Absorption of lowland Britain by the latter through grinding warfare and piecemeal accumulation over time (hence the dyke building and rebuilding)

All conjecture obviously

[Jim Webster]

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.

Not disagreeing with the argument but I think you mean Birdoswald

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banna_(Birdoswald)

[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.

Not disagreeing with the argument but I think you mean Birdoswald

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banna_(Birdoswald)

That's it.

[aligern]

Justin, re your numbers to support  a military unit
You have a force of 300 men supported on 400 x400 yards of territory giving 4000 acres . An acre is 4046 square metres. So 4000 acres is 16000000 square yards whereas 400 metresx 400 metres is 160000sq yards approx.
Soneone more mathematical can check out my numbers, but one thing I can tell you is tat 400  by 400 metres is not going to support 2000 people not least because you have lower yields, a mix of crops needed and woods, marshes etc to account for.
Nor is it likely that it was so easy to support military units at high effectiveness . If you can get an effective unit out of your 400m x 400m zone  then the military potential of the whole country would be huge and  in reality it just isn't
Roy

[Justin Swanton]

Justin, re your numbers to support  a military unit
You have a force of 300 men supported on 400 x400 yards of territory giving 4000 acres . An acre is 4046 square metres. So 4000 acres is 16000000 square yards whereas 400 metresx 400 metres is 160000sq yards approx.
Soneone more mathematical can check out my numbers, but one thing I can tell you is tat 400  by 400 metres is not going to support 2000 people not least because you have lower yields, a mix of crops needed and woods, marshes etc to account for.
Nor is it likely that it was so easy to support military units at high effectiveness . If you can get an effective unit out of your 400m x 400m zone  then the military potential of the whole country would be huge and  in reality it just isn't
Roy

You're right. It's 40 x 40 hectares, i.e. 4000 x 4000 metres = 4km x 4km. I got a decimal point in the wrong place. So the agricultural land is 16km² The horses need half as much land = 8km². Total land area is 24km² = 4,9 x 4,9km, or if you have it in a circle the radius is 2,78km. Make it a 4km radius to account for agricultural inefficiency and not all the land being optimal for cultivation. Still quite workable.

Re military potential, professional armies were generally much smaller than the land resources capable of supporting them, unlike tribal levies. I don't think it was just about food. Philip's Macedonia was barely capable of supporting a professional army of about 40 000 men and it certainly had enough land. It was probably in part about creating/replacing equipment. One can hypothesize that the Romano-british forces could be fed from local resources but could not over time replace their worn or damaged equipment nor, ultimately, their horses.

[Jim Webster]

Justin, re your numbers to support  a military unit
You have a force of 300 men supported on 400 x400 yards of territory giving 4000 acres . An acre is 4046 square metres. So 4000 acres is 16000000 square yards whereas 400 metresx 400 metres is 160000sq yards approx.
Soneone more mathematical can check out my numbers, but one thing I can tell you is tat 400  by 400 metres is not going to support 2000 people not least because you have lower yields, a mix of crops needed and woods, marshes etc to account for.
Nor is it likely that it was so easy to support military units at high effectiveness . If you can get an effective unit out of your 400m x 400m zone  then the military potential of the whole country would be huge and  in reality it just isn't
Roy

You're right. It's 40 x 40 hectares, i.e. 4000 x 4000 metres = 4km x 4km. I got a decimal point in the wrong place. So the agricultural land is 16km² The horses need half as much land = 8km². Total land area is 24km² = 4,9 x 4,9km, or if you have it in a circle the radius is 2,78km. Make it a 4km radius to account for agricultural inefficiency and not all the land being optimal for cultivation. Still quite workable.

Re military potential, professional armies were generally much smaller than the land resources capable of supporting them, unlike tribal levies. I don't think it was just about food. Philip's Macedonia was barely capable of supporting a professional army of about 40 000 men and it certainly had enough land. It was probably in part about creating/replacing equipment. One can hypothesize that the Romano-british forces could be fed from local resources but could not over time replace their worn or damaged equipment nor, ultimately, their horses.

The actual area the ancients awarded soldiers seems to be far larger than you think. I gathered some figures together for a slingshot article "Food, land and fertility and the troops you can support" which I wrote in 2009

These are the actual areas in the attachment

[Andreas Johansson]

Most if not all of those [excepting the Egyptian peasant, obviously] would be expected to not only feed themselves and any servants etc. from that land, but also to equip themselves by selling the surplus, right?

What was the situation of c. AD 400 legionaries and auxiliaries - where they issued kit, or were they too expected to to buy their own?

In one sense it doesn't matter of course: someone is going to have to produce the agricultural surplus to feed the equipment-makers. But Justin seem to be envisioning a model where equipment is (or eventually isn't) distributed centrally which should make a big difference to how much land is directly assigned to the soldiery.

[Patrick Waterson]

Does anyone know the process by which late-empire limitanei (the most likely troop style for 5th-6th century AD Britain) were assigned land, and if so, how much?

There are a few caveats regarding land.  There is good land and bad land.  A few acres of prime tilth will yield more than several times the number of acres of thin, rocky soil.  Practices regarding fertiliser and/or leaving fallow need to be taken into account (more land is needed if some is left fallow).  Did land-sustained soldiery pay taxes or not?  And did they have to (as Andreas asks) fund their own equipment or not?  If not, then any comparison with civilians (who might have to give up between one tenth and one third of their crop) has to be unskewed.

[Jim Webster]

Does anyone know the process by which late-empire limitanei (the most likely troop style for 5th-6th century AD Britain) were assigned land, and if so, how much?

There are a few caveats regarding land.  There is good land and bad land.  A few acres of prime tilth will yield more than several times the number of acres of thin, rocky soil.  Practices regarding fertiliser and/or leaving fallow need to be taken into account (more land is needed if some is left fallow).  Did land-sustained soldiery pay taxes or not?  And did they have to (as Andreas asks) fund their own equipment or not?  If not, then any comparison with civilians (who might have to give up between one tenth and one third of their crop) has to be unskewed.

The limitanei were not normally assigned land. There appear to have been some forts with grazing attached, but we know that limitanei drew rations just like everybody else
Indeed Southern & Dixon. the Later Roman Army point out on page 36 that it was in the Laws of Justinian that we see Limitanei defined as those whose duty was to defend the cities of the frontier and cultivate the earth.  To quote, "The sixth-century use of the word is not necessarily synonymous with that of the fourth and may have been applied anachronistically by later writers to the frontier arrangements of former emperors. "

Most late Roman soldiers, especially limitanei, would have families, and it was common enough for soldiers to own slaves as well.
According to Elton, food and equipment were not deducted from the salary, mainly because the salary was probably so small

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IXFUAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT223&lpg=PT223&dq=trades+of+men+in+the+limitanei&source=bl&ots=NmoXsbZy6z&sig=ACfU3U0N7nmW7UFCXZD18j1VPqG4jvZheQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZic-IlfHmAhVHhlwKHaAxBa0Q6AEwDHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=trades%20of%20men%20in%20the%20limitanei&f=false

should take you to something on the life of the Limitanei in Egypt

[Erpingham]

Not disagreeing with the argument but I think you mean Birdoswald

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banna_(Birdoswald)

Don't know why but the final bracket has fallen off that link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banna_(Birdoswald)

[Erpingham]

We might also note the late Roman stipulation that soldiers' sons were obliged to follow their fathers' profession, if physically able.  They weren't obliged to join their fathers old unit, though one can see how, if the central system of conscription has broken down, this might be the case.  One can therefore see what started as an army unit evolving into a social or kin entity, as soldier families intermarried.

[Anton]

I think it might well have played out something like Dave conjectured above.  It would be useful if we knew where the imperial estates where in Britannia.  Last time I checked we still don't.


I think the military community as a thing apart came into being quite early on. Soldiers could be born into it.  Maybe the sons of the veterans settled in the Colonia also enlisted.  If they were a self contained community once they were transferred they were gone. 

I often wonder at the relationship between the British Colonia and the non military population.

[aligern]

Anthony , wasn't the legislation enforcing that soldiers sons  joined the arnyin the  Late Empire possibly an indication of a central authority desperate for troops attempting to solve the problem through legislation which may have been very ineffective?  Its a commonplace that in the Early Empire towns were run by the local elite who served for honour. With the third century crisis and the growth of the army events  led to a militarised  bureaucracy abd the flight of the local nobles to their estates plus  the concentration of estates in fewer richer hands and  often absentee landlordism with estates farmed by depressed semi slave coloni.  Legislation at the centre might not be well enforced, recruits could flee to the Bagaudae , or be hidden by their landlord, pay a bribe to avoid unpopular service. Governments of the period could enforce legislation only patchily.
Roman Society ran on clientage and it must have been a problem for Late Empire recruiters that client relationships   ran counter to the one to one 'atomised'  relationship with the state that the bureaucracy tried to enforce.
Roy

[Jim Webster]

Anthony , wasn't the legislation enforcing that soldiers sons  joined the arnyin the  Late Empire possibly an indication of a central authority desperate for troops attempting to solve the problem through legislation which may have been very ineffective?  Its a commonplace that in the Early Empire towns were run by the local elite who served for honour. With the third century crisis and the growth of the army events  led to a militarised  bureaucracy abd the flight of the local nobles to their estates plus  the concentration of estates in fewer richer hands and  often absentee landlordism with estates farmed by depressed semi slave coloni.  Legislation at the centre might not be well enforced, recruits could flee to the Bagaudae , or be hidden by their landlord, pay a bribe to avoid unpopular service. Governments of the period could enforce legislation only patchily.
Roman Society ran on clientage and it must have been a problem for Late Empire recruiters that client relationships   ran counter to the one to one 'atomised'  relationship with the state that the bureaucracy tried to enforce.
Roy

At this point I'd recommend 'Corruption and the Decline of Rome' by Ramsay Macmullen
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Corruption-Decline-Rome-R-Macmullen/dp/0300047991/

[Patrick Waterson]

Anthony , wasn't the legislation enforcing that soldiers sons  joined the arnyin the  Late Empire possibly an indication of a central authority desperate for troops attempting to solve the problem through legislation which may have been very ineffective?

It was part of Diocletian's general overhaul of the Roman system in which he decreed that sons must follow the profession of their fathers.  Contrary to general belief, a strong driving rpinciple behind this legislation was that far too many men were joining or trying to join the army - and leaving tax-paying civilian occupations to do so.  Diocletian wanted to ensure predictable future supplies of goods and revenues (this was also part of his attempt to fix prices to curb rampant inflation - keeping supply and demand steady does tend to help).

A century onwards, and the sons-follow-fathers provision was not producing enough soldiers, especially on account of the rash of civil wars in the 4th century AD which significantly reduced soldier numbers.  Barbarian foederati and recruits made up the difference, but a new problem - severely exacerbated by Theodosius' abolition of the worship of Mithras - was that Christianity was cutting off any flow of new recruits because of a new emphasis on 'thou shalt not kill' (this had not been a serious problem up to Diocletian, but men were now avoiding the system by entering monasteries or deliberately mutilating themselves to avoid military service).

The way I see it, the recruitment problem seems to have been not so much one of organisation as actual available manpower (Vegetius was lamenting the decline in quantity and quality, and in addition the tendency of good officers to serve with the auxilia not the legions).  The warm bodies were there for potential or actual recruitment: the motivation to serve was, on the whole, not.  This resulted in the increasing barbarisation of the army, and cutting out Mithras left predominantly Arian Christian barbarians defending a predominantly Athanasian Christian Empire.  Add in emperors of the capacity of Honorius and Valentinian II and III and the collapse of the Western Empire is not too surprising.