The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Jim Webster]

1. c. 420AD - The Roman administration leaves Britain.

And this is the first problem, Roman administration.
To quote a passage from the wiki (not because of it's excellence but because it nicely summarises some of the discussion)

An appeal for help by the British communities was, according to Zosimus, rejected by the Emperor Honorius in 410 AD. In the text called the Rescript of Honorius of 411, the Western Emperor Honorius tells the British civitates to look to their own defence as his regime was still fighting usurpers in the south of Gaul and trying to deal with the Visigoths who were in the very south of Italy. The first reference to this rescript is written by the sixth-century Byzantine scholar Zosimus and is located randomly in the middle of a discussion of southern Italy; no further mention of Britain is made, which has led some, though not all, modern academics to suggest that the rescript does not apply to Britain, but to Bruttium in Italy.

The Rescript, presuming it refers to Britain, shows that Roman administration was still alive and well in Britain in 410. The writers, clearly British dignitaries, consider themselves as part of the Empire and Honorius as their overlord who is responsible for their welfare. That makes them "Roman administration" by any definition. Notice that Honorius doesn't ask them: "Who are you and why are you writing to me? He accepts that the welfare of the island is in principle his problem but tells them he simply doesn't have the manpower to help them and advises them to aid themselves.

The trouble is you're using words that had no meaning
We know there is a massive drop off in coin finds. Effectively they stopped using coinage, even compared to ten years previously.
So if there was an administration it was unique in the Roman world in not using coin
Secondly Emperors regularly got deputations, messages, loyal addresses from the civitates of various areas, asking for favours, thanking the Emperor for just existing, or even for doing something for them, so the source wouldn't have been an issue. Being part of one of these delegations, or even just carrying the letter, was a route to career advancement, you might attract the positive attention of the Emperor.

But Syvanne  does make a good case for some Roman units crossing into Britain, not a 'reconquest' but just a temporary transfer, at a particular point in one of the campaigns. they may have stayed a few years but not that long

[Anton]

its also probably why we see the emergence of local rulers and 'kingdoms' in those areas ahead of more Southerly areas

That is a whole discussion in itself.

The Men of Bryneich are Brigantes and Cunedda is no king.   

Beyond the Wall  "Men listened to X although he was no Gododdin tribesman".

There seems to have been a transition from the tribal based civates to dynastic rule over pretty much the same territory.  The same thing seems to be happening in Ireland and the protagonists are those with the closest involvement in Britannia.

The earlier Ogham stones reference tribal identity the later ones dynastic identity.

It's hard not to see this as a result of militarisation.

[Erpingham]

I've had a general interest in Arthurian Britain since reading Ashe and Alcock back in my schooldays (and probably watching Arthur of the Britons on the telly), though I've not kept up to the huge genre that has grown up.  It does seem to me, though, that, while the dates and details are elusive, we do have a much clearer idea that there was a Romanised form of government after the Romans "left", not just a fall back to pre-Roman tribal structures, as once believed.  But I'm not sure we can say it was still a Roman administration, rather than something built on the forms and existing social and legal structures.  As Stephen says, this would transform over time to kingship over time, with perhaps the politics of warlordism as an intermediary or catalytic phase (you can see I was quite taken by that article on Gothic warlordism I referenced in another topic )

[Imperial Dave]

what I am fairly confident myself is that there is no definitive date/time when Roman authority ceases and Sub Roman Britain begins. The 410AD rescript can be seen as something of a red herring as it is in all essences a call for help not a declaration of independence

[Justin Swanton]

I've had a general interest in Arthurian Britain since reading Ashe and Alcock back in my schooldays (and probably watching Arthur of the Britons on the telly), though I've not kept up to the huge genre that has grown up.  It does seem to me, though, that, while the dates and details are elusive, we do have a much clearer idea that there was a Romanised form of government after the Romans "left", not just a fall back to pre-Roman tribal structures, as once believed.  But I'm not sure we can say it was still a Roman administration, rather than something built on the forms and existing social and legal structures.  As Stephen says, this would transform over time to kingship over time, with perhaps the politics of warlordism as an intermediary or catalytic phase (you can see I was quite taken by that article on Gothic warlordism I referenced in another topic )

There is a before and after state in Britain over the 5th and into the 6th century. The before is a collection of provinces of which the inhabitants are obedient (semi) Romanised subjects who had long since lost the martial spirit of their ancestors. They have a sense of Roman identity and are happy to be part of the imperial system. Their former tribal identities are weakened to the point of transparency - except in the outlier districts like Wales or the north, where the tribal structures are stronger and the men more apt to fight. Maximus establishes the outliers as militarised districts but they are not enough to contain the Picts and Scots. The more Romanised southern areas can only bleat to Rome for help. They do have some sort of military system however, inherited from the Romans who teach them how to equip themselves and presumably how to fight. With this force they are just about able to contain the Saxons and as time goes by their army improves until it is able to regularly defeat the Saxons in battle, eventually crushing them at Badon.

Over the 400's things gradually start mutating into the after. The sense of a common Roman identity endures to the end of Arthur's career as commander of the combined forces of Roman Britain, but fissures develop after the Saxon threat is neutralised. There is never a strong, centralised civic authority. The local magistrates gradually transform into kings. They can still work together against the common peril - and notice that they are militarily significant - "Then it was, that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military force of Britain, fought against the Saxons." - but as their regional authority solidifies their sense of unity diminishes and in the 6th century they are no longer able to make common cause against the Saxons. This weakens their military capability and the Saxons and other germanic settlers begin an irreversible two-century process of conquest.

How does that sound?

[Justin Swanton]

The trouble is you're using words that had no meaning
We know there is a massive drop off in coin finds. Effectively they stopped using coinage, even compared to ten years previously.
So if there was an administration it was unique in the Roman world in not using coin

True. There was a spectacular economic collapse in Britain in the course of the 5th century. Pottery production ceased altogether. This could be due to the constant raiding by Picts, Irish, Scots, Saxons and the rest, that completely disrupted the economic infrastructure, reducing manufacturing to the village level. It's likely that late Roman industry was a centralised process that was paralysed not only by barbarian predations but also by the lack of a strong centralised authority that enabled the local municipalities to work together. This doesn't mean though that the British didn't see themselves as Roman subjects and that the Empire didn't view them as such.

[aligern]

Ah, but wvhat is Roman authority?  The situation in Britain is confused because the structure is inherently different in the lowland zone where there are towns with dependent areas ( once tribal) and the upland (or military zone) where the model is more tribal and federate. Since it was the highland zone that survived best and gave us a literature generated by the Celtic church and the dynasties that later ruled there it gives us a model that might not hold for civitates in the East of the country. Relatively recent work that has made claims for the continuance of tribal organisation seems to me to be confused by the original foundation of a town being a tribal centre and the tribal name clinging on through inertia, but did that mean real tribal culture and authority continuing on over a dozen generations. Were the labourers on the land conscious that they were Dobunni in any meaningful way.
The Empire had a gap in its structure between the town ( with dependent countryside) and the Empire itself ( ownerr of the  imperial bureaucracy and  the army, which was an imperial entity. Was there any structure or loyalty at the level of a province or diocese? Certainly it had no troops.  Interestingly the Christian church has no such intermediate structure. In Spain, when the Roman army no longer operates there the resistance to Gothic rule is by the cities.  There is no superior organisation that can maintain and deploy troops.
In Britain one might argue that the same applies and there is no province wide organisation with any traction.  Thus in the highland zone there is still tribal consciousness and reasoably rapidly , kings arise because the need for a war leader drives such a concentration of power.  In the South it might become  matter of town councils and many small units with no overall hierarchy... It has been suggested that Ambrosius ( or Arthur if they are not the same ) is the last claimant to something akin to governorship, one appointed by the Lowland Britons when Rome will not send one.
If the only structure the Eastern Britons have is the small cities , then no wonder they fell, because each would only have been of a size that a few boatloads of Saxons or Angles could take over and once the Saxons formed kingdoms these would be bigger than any British unit until the Western, once tribally based, kingdoms were encountered.
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

nicely put Roy. I also think broadly along those lines.

We are reasonably confident that 'Highland' areas develop post Roman identities earliest and with the associated kingdom growth. S and SE areas are more Romanised and cling more towards the Roman model for as long as they can. A decline in the monetary system hastens the end of the large scale functioning of the imperial tax system and with it the city functioning and old landowner model. It is replaced by a hotch potch of civitates council control in some places, decurion or leading citizen (large landowner) led areas in others. Reliance on the imperial war machine leads to reliance on the next best thing...federate troops. Some of these are pre existing from the 4th century (Saxon Shore forts etc) and some are newly engaged by these ruling elites. There was probably an effort to maintain a working 'Roman' bureaucracy by these civitates either together (as in Vortigern et al), in isolation, or even in competition (Vortigern/Ambrosius). Further complications will have emerged re religious standpoints (Celtic/Pelagianism/Roman), re-emerging tribal identities and a reliance on hired help to enforce the peace. Things start coming to a head when Gaul is effectively carved up creating pressures on tribal movements on the continent and either tribes looking for employment or escape. The latterly implied internal divisions between Ambrosius and Vortigern (assuming they are contemporary) or similar, creates an opportunity for new groups/federates to expand into vacuums or weak areas but not necessarily to 'overrun them'. Having said that there may have been some 'migration' events during this period in which elites and some working populations move either westwards or to Britanny (and we are certain of the latter)

As time  marches on in the 5th, internal pressures build up such that we get to a defacto state of emerging Germanic proto kingdoms (although very much smaller than the civitates or equivalents in the North and West) either piecemeal absorbing/coming into conflict with others (not necessarily exclusively Romano British even if the sparse written assumptions are so) or as confederations. Culmination with a BIG engagement loosely called Badon that halts this process for 2 generations until Gildas picks up the narrative with his moans of the British....

Arthur is a red herring for this time period. If he exists it is likely he is from another time period possibly mid to late 6th or even 7th and certainly post Gildas (there are allegedly 2 Badons we must remember...)

[Erpingham]

This doesn't mean though that the British didn't see themselves as Roman subjects and that the Empire didn't view them as such.

Quite likely.  One day the Empire would return, the economy would pick up and there would again be nice pottery in the shops.  In the mean time, they would muddle on .   As I've said above, the obvious structures to maintain would be the social, legal and administrative processes they were familiar with, just without the Imperial layer or regular forces.

[aligern]

I don't know how strong tge local councils were likely to be. In Gaul the bishops pkayed a major part in keeping things running.  In England the church does not appear to have the sane strength. It has been suggested ( Liebschutz think) that Roman military units would take over their locality and their commander become a small scale warlord.  If that did happen and there is not much evidence, then it is  likely to have been only a small unit of men that continued on.  500 infantry or 300 cavalry is expensive and unnecessary if your main task is to chase bandits and overawe bagaudae. That would explain why the groups of federates appear so small.  As to the civitates having greater military potential tgan the Saxon kingdoms, I somehow doubt it.  The Saxons could count on most adult males being militarily useful, whereas the Britons are running something very like a slave or a share cropping economy. with the lower orders not being military participants.
Again it has been suggested that one of the attractions of barbarian rule or at least the collapse of the Roman system, was the reduction in the tax burden as the central power weakened and there was no army to spend the money on or send taxes in kind to.
Roy

[Justin Swanton]

Arthur is a red herring for this time period. If he exists it is likely he is from another time period possibly mid to late 6th or even 7th and certainly post Gildas (there are allegedly 2 Badons we must remember...)

I think Gildas doesn't mention Arthur - as he doesn't mention Germanus - because that was outside the scope of his sermon. He bewails the moral turpitude of the British and especially the British kings, citing one good king, Ambrosius, as an exemplar of a good ruler. A warrior bishop or a military commander of lower social rank would have been off-topic.

[Nick Harbud]

One day the Empire would return, the economy would pick up and there would again be nice pottery in the shops.  In the mean time, they would muddle on. 

Gosh, it all sounds terribly like society's current response to a new disease.  Are you sure we are not making the classic mistake of simply imposing our modern views upon events that happened 1,500 years ago?

[Anton]

what I am fairly confident myself is that there is no definitive date/time when Roman authority ceases and Sub Roman Britain begins. The 410AD rescript can be seen as something of a red herring as it is in all essences a call for help not a declaration of independence

I have a slightly different take on that.

Roman authority is gone, certainly by 410.  Roman allegiance persists and is encouraged even by Constantinople.  There is a Ken Dark quote that I'm sure you know that sort of sums it up.

[Erpingham]

Are you sure we are not making the classic mistake of simply imposing our modern views upon events that happened 1,500 years ago?

No, but I do acknowledge the influence of Douglas Adams

FORD:
Delay? Have you seen the world outside this ship? It's a wasteland. A desert. Civilisation's been and gone. It's over. There are no lemon-soaked paper napkins on the way from anywhere.

AUTOPILOT:
The statistical likelihood is that other civilisations will arise. There will one day be lemon-soaked paper napkins. 'Till then, there will be a short delay. Please return to your seats.

[Imperial Dave]

Arthur is a red herring for this time period. If he exists it is likely he is from another time period possibly mid to late 6th or even 7th and certainly post Gildas (there are allegedly 2 Badons we must remember...)

I think Gildas doesn't mention Arthur - as he doesn't mention Germanus - because that was outside the scope of his sermon. He bewails the moral turpitude of the British and especially the British kings, citing one good king, Ambrosius, as an exemplar of a good ruler. A warrior bishop or a military commander of lower social rank would have been off-topic.

of course absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence but if you take the sum of all the information available it lends itself to a Badon being fought by Ambrosius. References to Arthur would appear to be more 6th and 7th century related and possibly multiple characters who become overlaid with each other.