Walls and Withdrawals: Gildas’ Version of the End of Roman Britain

[Imperial Dave]

Not a bother Jim.   I hope you find it useful.

I think we are all ploughing the same furrow here Dave.  There's enough indicative stuff to give us points to ponder. 

I wonder how much of the political infrastructure of the Diocese was still in place in the time of St Germanus and Vortigern?  What we have doesn't indicate a politically atomised society to me.  Even in Gildas's day the kings can hunt down malefactors across the country. 

Then we have Riothamus willing and able to intervene for the Empire in Gaul.

indeed. Germanus found a (at least superficially) functioning Roman 'state' upon his visit and was able to organise the locals into action against Picts/Irish/Saxons. If his attested visit is indded 429AD then it is only 8 or 9 years after this posited 3 year Roman Adventure

[nikgaukroger]

It seems unlikely that there was Imperial Roman control of Britain after the revolt of 406.  As the paper indicates, 419 - 421 is about the only plausible time for an expedition from Gaul to Britain to re-establish Imperial control.

One problem I have with that period for an expedition to Britain is that it is the time when Constantius (III briefly) in focused on Gaul and Spain - and his Gallic emphasis appears to have been the south. I find an expedition to Britain to be a bit implausible in the wider scheme of things even if it were by a more junior leader than Constantius, the imperial focus just wasn't on the north it had far more important things to do.

[nikgaukroger]

Then we have Riothamus willing and able to intervene for the Empire in Gaul.

I wonder whether this was really a case of intervening to support the empire or a case of a group ejected from Britain for some reason due to local issues (lost out in some way) who then became yet another local warlord led group in the area north of the Loire? I seriously doubt the claim in Jordanes that Anthemius invited them.

[Jim Webster]

It seems unlikely that there was Imperial Roman control of Britain after the revolt of 406.  As the paper indicates, 419 - 421 is about the only plausible time for an expedition from Gaul to Britain to re-establish Imperial control.

One problem I have with that period for an expedition to Britain is that it is the time when Constantius (III briefly) in focused on Gaul and Spain - and his Gallic emphasis appears to have been the south. I find an expedition to Britain to be a bit implausible in the wider scheme of things even if it were by a more junior leader than Constantius, the imperial focus just wasn't on the north it had far more important things to do.

that's one reason why I thought it might be a very 'minimalist' expedition.

[Imperial Dave]

although reestablishing control of the channel would be a massive boost to Roman aspirations of holding Gaul and by consequence Britannia together in the latter part of the 1st quarter of the 5th century

[Jim Webster]

although reestablishing control of the channel would be a massive boost to Roman aspirations of holding Gaul and by consequence Britannia together in the latter part of the 1st quarter of the 5th century

I think that we might consider it to be recovering Britain, in reality, they may not think they'd 'lost' Britain. British officials may have been in reasonably regular touch, doubtless merchants and families were still crossing backwards and forwards, in some small way. Indeed problems in Gaul might be as big a barrier to movement as problems in Britain.
With parts of Gaul ignoring the Empire and other bits controlled by people actively hostile, Britain might not have seemed a problem.
Caesar claimed that to control Gaul he had to deal with Britain, it might even be that at a certain level this is true?

[Anton]

I'd incline to that view too.  For the British elites it would have been a win win situation.  Revenue remained at home and diplomatic relations remained cordial.  In that way it strikes me as quite like like the happier moments of the Gallic Empire.  The latter we can recall was quietly reabsorbed once circumstances changed.

British links with Amorica seem to have been deep and resilient.  I'd be more inclined, on Nik's point, to see Riothamus's expedition as something that served both British and Imperial interests.

The Frankish/British/Breton interaction as seen by Howard Wiseman seems to have been characterised by two points. First the British/Bretons could happily take on the Franks and secondly the conversion of the Franks allowed for a reconciliation.  Adherence to the Imperial cult of Christianity seems to have been an important political factor in this period. That in itself reflected on the Emperor regardless of his abilities as Peter Heather noted.

[Jim Webster]

Adherence to the Imperial cult of Christianity seems to have been an important political factor in this period. That in itself reflected on the Emperor regardless of his abilities as Peter Heather noted.

The position of the Emperor was interesting it that being Christian and head of the church legitimised him. By the end of the Second Century AD and start of Third Century, Christians started regarding Baptism and the Eucharist as 'sacraments' The problem with this is that it is the "sacramentum" which is the oath sworn by the Roman army. The evolution of this idea is easily seen as Paul talks about Christians being Citizens of heaven and there is a strong sense that you cannot serve two masters. (No man can serve two masters: for either he. will hate the one, and love the other; or else. he will hold to the one, and despise the other, Ye cannot serve God and mammon.)

So it was difficult for a Christian to swear allegiance to the Emperor because the Christian had already sworn allegiance to God.
But if the Emperor was God's representative, then he was, as it were, in the chain of command. So a Christian could probably legitimately serve a Christian Emperor.  Yes Christians had served previously often in large numbers, and would refuse to serve afterwards, but this placing the Emperor in the divine chain of command is important and continued to be important for centuries. As an example, in  the 39 articles of the Church of England (the version signed by Charles 1st on his accession) it starts

His Majesty's Declaration
BEING by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these Our Dominions, We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious Zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in Unity of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace; and not to suffer unnecessary Disputations, Altercations, or Questions to be raised, which may nourish Faction both in the Church and Commonwealth. We have therefore, upon mature Deliberation, and with the Advice of so many of Our Bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following:

Which effectively states, 'I'm in the chain of command between you and God, so you can swear allegiance to me.'

And in fact the final article states

It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

So yes, I suspect Christianity legitimised the position of Emperor, but may not of legitimised the position of an individual Emperor. So Emperors could be replaced and a successful Christian replacement was obviously just an internal office reshuffle of which God apparently approved. 

[Anton]

Yes, it's interesting to deconstruct it.

In effect if things go badly it's because men made a mistake and got the wrong Emperor but that can, and must be, swiftly rectified because God requires the right Emperor.  God, of course, is always right and so the Emperor is always sacred except when a mistake has been made by men.

I thought Peter Heather's exposition of this in his last book to be very good.

[Jim Webster]

Yes, it's interesting to deconstruct it.

In effect if things go badly it's because men made a mistake and got the wrong Emperor but that can, and must be, swiftly rectified because God requires the right Emperor.  God, of course, is always right and so the Emperor is always sacred except when a mistake has been made by men.

I thought Peter Heather's exposition of this in his last book to be very good.

Yes this allows both stability and flexibility.
I don't know whether there is any cause and effect here, but in the 4th century, only  Magnentius, Magnus Maximus, Eugenius seemed to have successfully broken into the Imperial line, briefly. Otherwise Emperors tended to be killed and replaced by other 'legitimate' emperors.
It may be that Christianity helped stabilise dynasties?

[Imperial Dave]

I'd incline to that view too.  For the British elites it would have been a win win situation.  Revenue remained at home and diplomatic relations remained cordial.  In that way it strikes me as quite like like the happier moments of the Gallic Empire.  The latter we can recall was quietly reabsorbed once circumstances change
British links with Amorica seem to have been deep and resilient.  I'd be more inclined, on Nik's point, to see Riothamus's expedition as something that served both British and Imperial interests.

The Frankish/British/Breton interaction as seen by Howard Wiseman seems to have been characterised by two points. First the British/Bretons could happily take on the Franks and secondly the conversion of the Franks allowed for a reconciliation.  Adherence to the Imperial cult of Christianity seems to have been an important political factor in this period. That in itself reflected on the Emperor regardless of his abilities as Peter Heather noted.

the Breton/Armorica angle has always interested me. The slow loss of Britain from the Empire makes the connection with Armorica that much more understandable and logical. If it was assumed that elites had land both sides of the channel, they could flit from area to area depending on the immediate circumstances but once things started to look more and more dicey for Britain, either through pelagianism, highland warlords encroaching on the lowlands or removal of official Roman units, they would be a steady stream to move there during the 5th and then the 6th C

[Jim Webster]

I'd incline to that view too.  For the British elites it would have been a win win situation.  Revenue remained at home and diplomatic relations remained cordial.  In that way it strikes me as quite like like the happier moments of the Gallic Empire.  The latter we can recall was quietly reabsorbed once circumstances change
British links with Amorica seem to have been deep and resilient.  I'd be more inclined, on Nik's point, to see Riothamus's expedition as something that served both British and Imperial interests.

The Frankish/British/Breton interaction as seen by Howard Wiseman seems to have been characterised by two points. First the British/Bretons could happily take on the Franks and secondly the conversion of the Franks allowed for a reconciliation.  Adherence to the Imperial cult of Christianity seems to have been an important political factor in this period. That in itself reflected on the Emperor regardless of his abilities as Peter Heather noted.

the Breton/Armorica angle has always interested me. The slow loss of Britain from the Empire makes the connection with Armorica that much more understandable and logical. If it was assumed that elites had land both sides of the channel, they could flit from area to area depending on the immediate circumstances but once things started to look more and more dicey for Britain, either through pelagianism, highland warlords encroaching on the lowlands or removal of official Roman units, they would be a steady stream to move there during the 5th and then the 6th C

rather than a stream of 'refugees' would it be local elites with their 'clients' moving to where they had connections?

[Anton]

I would guess that the same extended families held power on both sides of the channel and that alliances and clientship operated throughout. 

If things got too hot in Britannia a prestigious leader could charter a merchant ship, we know they were still about, and move his people on mass.  The trip being paid for by future exactions from the transported.  Thinking of Koch's view of the the migration of the Cornovii to Dumnonia did the Dummonian elite do just what Dave suggests and head for Brittany?

[Imperial Dave]

the other interesting thing, for me, is why the exodus eastwards and over the sea rather than westwards. To me this presents either, as suggested, that elites had estates or sponsors in Armorica or were not too enamoured of moving to the largely 'Highland' areas of Western Britain. Why? Could be explained purely because there were very well established local magnates and warlords westwards that would resist economic migrants. Alternatively there could have been a more fundamental difference in outlook, politically, socio-economically or religiously

[Jim Webster]

the other interesting thing, for me, is why the exodus eastwards and over the sea rather than westwards. To me this presents either, as suggested, that elites had estates or sponsors in Armorica or were not too enamoured of moving to the largely 'Highland' areas of Western Britain. Why? Could be explained purely because there were very well established local magnates and warlords westwards that would resist economic migrants. Alternatively there could have been a more fundamental difference in outlook, politically, socio-economically or religiously

It could be that they had closer ties with others in the 'lowland zone' or perhaps even with the existing aristocracy in parts of Gaul
I can imagine that Western Britain had its own ruling class in place that didn't need them
Also I suspect they and their clients would have been superfluous in that they wouldn't bring with them the sort of skills needed to 'open up new lands' or otherwise strengthen the area