The Groans of the Britons:

Toward the British Civitates Period ca. 406-455 C.E.

By Kevin Mummy

I shall not follow the writings and records of my own country, which (if there ever
were any of them) have been consumed by the fires of the enemy, or have
accompanied my exiled countrymen into distant lands &
[1]


Since the time of Gildas, the first great chronicler of the British, the problem of reliable
sources, or any sources, has been lamented. Over the centuries, myth, pseudo-history, and
educated guesswork have rushed in to fill the void.
[2]
The last thirty years have seen a revival of
interest in the fifth and sixth centuries, and a great deal of work has been done on the historical
and archaeological records.

Ironically, the increased focus on the period has cast a doubt on almost every important
assumption that has been made about early Britain. Ian Wood has noted that between the
usurpation of Constantine III in 407 and the death of the Roman consul Aetius in 455 there are a
handful of dateable events associated with the British Isles.
[3]
Yet even these are the subject of
intense debate. Primary narrative sources, especially the chronicles, have come under fire. Many
have been abandoned altogether, especially by archaeologists and historians favoring an
archaeological approach to the period.

With more questions than answers, historians are presented with many challenges, not the least
of which is what to call this period and over what period of time that identification might be
valid. The End of Roman Britain, Post Roman Britain, Dark Age Britain, and Arthur s Britain
have been used in the past. From archaeology we have sub-Roman Britain. All of the above are
to some degree unsatisfactory. Since the abandonment of the island by the legions of Magnus
Maximus (388), Stilicho (ca. 402), and lastly Constantine (407), a society began to form there
that was clearly not Roman. The singularity of the British historical circumstance led to a society
that was unique when compared to the Late Roman provinces on the continent.

The question of periodization is equally problematic. Traditionally, historians have focused on
the years 400 600, approximately the time from the departure of the legions to the Augustinian
mission.
[4]
While this approach has advantages in that it covers the period from Roman Britain to
Christian-era England, it paints with too broad a brush. I will argue that the period from 406 to
the mid-450s presents a unique period in British history, one in which the
independent civitates of the island established a government independent from the Roman
Empire. Their revolt in 409 was unparalleled in the West.
[5]
Independence did not mean,
however, that affairs in Britain were separate from those on the continent. In 429, the Church
became involved in the Pelagian heresy on the island. This coincided with the military affairs of
the Roman general Aetius in Armorica, the Gallic province across the channel from Britain. In
the late 440s the Britons pleaded to this same Aetius for Roman help in their fight against
barbarian incursions, and by the time of his death, the last chance for Roman involvement
disappeared. The independent British government of 409, succumbing to a variety of internal and
external pressures, transformed into an island of petty kingdoms ruled by Gildas s famous
tyrants, marking the end of the civitates period.
[6]
This paper will look at some of the political,
economic, religious, and military aspects of this historical process.


No Longer Obeying the Romans Laws
The history of the independent Brittonic kingdoms begins in the late fourth century. In 383 the
Roman usurper Magnus Maximus left Britain, according to Gildas, deprived of all her soldiery
and armed bands, of her cruel governors and of the flower of her youth, who went with
Maximus, but never again returned.
[7]
While Gildas s account of the extent of the Roman
departure has been called into question, there is no doubt that Maximus s usurpation had
weakened the defenses of the island.
[8]
The increased Pictish activity in this period, described by
Gildas
[9]
and supported by other evidence,
[10]
is a symptom of the weakened state of the Roman
military situation. Curiously, Maximus death in 388 did not end his involvement in British
history. By the ninth century, Maximus s name appears at the head of several Brittonic royal
genealogies. According to David Dumville, He appears both as the last Roman emperor in
Britain and as the first ruler of an independent Britain, from whom all legitimate power flowed a
pleasing irony, in view of his actual history as a usurper.
[11]


A further weakening of the Roman defenses in Britain occurred at the end of the century. The
first of the Pictish wars reported by Gildas continued multos annos until 389-90. In 398 the
Vandal general Stilicho, answering a call for help from the Britons, fought a campaign against
the Picts. In 401, however, he was forced to return to Italy in response to the threat posed by
Alaric.
[12]
His departure with the legions marks a turning point at least some of the island, such
as the area around Chester, would never again experience Roman military presence.

The revolt that began in 406 hastened the end of Roman Britain and ushered in
the civitates period. The previous thirty-five years had placed a great deal of stress on the Roman
military and political structure on the island. Thompson has noted that we know more about the
years 406-410 than we know about any other quinquennium of Romano-British history, apart
from the periods that Tacitus describes for us.
[13]
In 406 the soldiers in Britain revolted, raising a
certain Marcus to the purple. We don t know why the legions were compelled to rebel or why
they chose Marcus. The increase in Irish raiding activity in the south in 405 (attributed to Niall of
the Nine Hostages) may have contributed to the unease of the depleted garrison.
[14]
Lack of pay
there had been no imperial issue sent to the island since 402 is another likely cause of
discontent.
[15]
The bleak prospect of being stationed in the periphery during a time of crisis in the
center of the empire likely compelled the soldiers to look for a leader who would take them back
to the continent.

The events on the continent at the end of 406 provided a clear motive for the British revolt. On
December 31, a force of Alans, Vandals, and Suevis crossed the frozen Rhine, overwhelming the
imperial and federate forces and making their way unimpeded into Gaul.
[16]
In the early months
of 407, the British soldiers killed Marcus and appointed Gratian as their leader. He is described
by Orosius as municeps, some sort of civic official, perhaps a town councilor and member of the
aristocracy.
[17]
While his reign lasted only four months, and ended with his assassination, the
presence of a civic official as military commander is the first evidence indicating a representative
of the civitates assumed a role previously filled by an imperial official. The reason for his murder
is unknown, but it is probable his reluctance to take troops across the channel led to his
demise.
[18]



In early 407, the Germanic peoples were wreaking havoc in Gaul, and pressure continued to
mount on the island. Zosimus mentions that [The barbarians] became formidable even to the
armies in Britain, which, being afraid they might march against them, they drove to the point of
choosing tyrants, the aforesaid Marcus and Gratianus and thereafter Constantinus [Constantine].
[19]
Constantine is reported to have won the throne by virtue of his fortunate name (he would later
add the imperial name Flavius), but it seems more likely that the army was eager to replace the
town councilor with a soldier.
[20]
By mid-407 more detailed accounts, and probably a good many
rumors, concerning the barbarians would have reached the island. As early as May 407,
Constantine crossed the channel with a field army estimated at 6,000, leaving only inferior
frontier troops in Britain.
[21]
The last Roman usurper in Britain had gone, and he had taken the
army with him.

While the details of Constantine s continental adventures are outside the scope of this paper, his
fortunes were in decline by 409, rendering him powerless to provide for the defense of the
western provinces.
[22]
When Gerontius, the British lieutenant whom he had left in control of
Spain, revolted in 408, the Britons were left to fend for themselves. Zosimus writes of this in one
of the most famous passages in early British history:

Gerontius was incensed and, winning over the troops there (in Spain) caused the
barbarians in Gaul to rise against Constantine. Since Constantine did not hold out
against these (the greater part of his strength being in Spain), the barbarians from
beyond the Rhine overran everything at will and reduced the inhabitants of the
British Island and some of the peoples in Gaul to the necessity of rebelling from
the Roman Empire and of living by themselves, no longer obeying the Romans
laws. The Britons, therefore, taking up arms and fighting on their own behalf,
freed the cities from the barbarians who were pressing upon them; and the whole
of Armorica and other provinces of Gaul, imitating the Britons, freed themselves
in the same way, expelling the Roman officials and establishing a sovereign
constitution on their own authority. And the rebellion of Britain and of the
peoples in Gaul took place during the time of Constantine s usurpation &.
[23]


Historians have long debated this passage, especially the cause and nature of the rebellion. The
question of cause is perhaps a bit easier. The Gallic Chronicle of 452 reports that the British
provinces were devastated by an incursion of the Saxons.
[24]
Thus despite the problems
with Chronicle, we have an independent verification of a barbarian incursion.
[25]
The island,
denuded of troops, administrators, and money, would have little choice but to look to its own
defense. Fighting barbarians is one thing; overthrowing even the vestiges of the empire is quite
another.

Here the history of Britain begins to depart from that of the continent. No other late imperial
province reacted in such a vigorous way to the barbarian incursions. Other histories and
hagiographies of the period recall the sufferings of the indigenous populations at the hands of the
invader, the curious inertness of the locals, and their inability to organize resistance.
Olympiodorus recalls that the Romans in Spain fled to their walled cities and put up with the
horrors of cannibalism. He says nothing of active defense.
[26]
So why did the Britons act in such
a manner? Understanding the causes of this revolt in Britain tells about the character of the island
in 410 and the shape that it took in the several decades that followed. E. A. Thompson put
forward the idea of a peasant revolt against landowners and civic officials, not merely against the
Romans, similar to the bacaudae of Gaul.
[27]
He sees it as a social rebellion, not just a political
one. It is a persuasive argument, especially considering Zosimus reference to the bacaudic revolt
in Armorica, which was not crushed until 417, as imitating the revolt in Britain.
[28]
However,
there is nothing in the written or archaeological record to indicate a massive peasant uprising. In
fact, urban archaeological finds indicate the contrary. Excavations at Silchester, Wroxeter, and
Canterbury give evidence of prosperity and continuity that make the case for a violent overthrow
problematic.
[29]
Also, the class nature of the bacaudae themselves has been called into question,
and this further clouds the idea of a Late Antique class war.
[30]


Others turn to religion and its effect on the civitates as the cause of this singular revolt. J .N.L.
Myres suggests that the Pelagian ideas of social justice, self-reliance, and devotion to personal
freedom won wide acceptance among the British elites, and that their unique display of initiative
was an unleashing of long pent up desires for a way of life free from Roman tyranny and
corruption.
[31]
In this scenario, the revolt of the civitates is a high-status revolt, a prudent step by
Pelagian landowners who had ejected the corrupt administration of Constantine for having failed
to protect them from the barbarians.
[32]
This group of well-to-do landowners, in Myres s
argument, provides support for this movement for another twenty years, when they concern the
Church enough to inspire the visit of Saint Germanus.
[33]
Despite the fact that later scholarship
has shown that the Pelagian movement did not have the social and political aims suggested by
Myres, the strong evidence of wealthy Pelagians during this period speaks to unique social
conditions on the island.
[34]
The survival of a heretical segment of the population speaks to a
civil administration that is acting (or not acting) in a manner distinct from its late Roman
counterpart on the continent.

Kenneth Dark, on the other hand, suggests that the revolt was a low status Christian revolt. He
sees a connection between the new militancy centered around Martin of Tours, the disappearance
of pagan artifacts, and the change in villa status to paint a picture of a revolt of a newly
invigorated Christian population against a pagan elite.
[35]
This argument rests on shaky ground.
The evidence for Martinian militancy relies on a visit to the island by Victricius of Rouen, the
content of which is unknown, and the fact that Constantine s son Constans may have been a
monk. It is impossible to assess what influence this new movement in the Gallic Church may
have had in Britain. The archaeological evidence concerning the change in villa status suggests a
decline in the economy of Britain in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, and need not be tied
to a religious movement.
[36]
Religion may have played a part in the revolt of the civitates it is
hard to imagine a significant political event in the fifth century not being influenced by the
Church and its followers. However, the recent history of the Roman inability to provide peace
and security on the island is the more critical element here, in that it created a political situation
in which organized self-defense was seen as necessary for survival.

We return then to the civitates. The fact that the revolt cropped the administration down to
the civitates level indicates that they became the most important form of political organization in
Britain after the revolt.
[37]
The civitates were the building blocks of imperial organization, their
taxes in money and in kind supporting the imperial superstructure.
[38]
The rest of the imperial
administration had been cleared off the island. The head of the army, Constantine III, was gone,
and earlier many Roman administrators left with Stilicho. The Vicarius, who in Britain was both
the chief military and civil official, was not present. If he had been, he would have organized the
defense.
[39]
Zosimus does not even bother to mention him. It is clear that the expelled Roman
officials were of the provincial hierarchy. For the civitatesto organize a defense against the
barbarians, it was first necessary to expel the Roman officials and the system of rules and
practices designed to keep military power in the hands of the Empire.
[40]
In 410 the emperor
Honorius sent a letter to the Britons bidding them to take precautions on their own behalf.
[41]
While the letter has been the subject of some debate, it is now considered to be genuine.
[42]
Its
audience is what is of interest: Zosimus tells that Honorius wrote to the cities of Britain.
[43]
They
appear to have written a letter or letters informing him of their measures for self-defense, and his
response implies Imperial consent to those measures. The letter indicates that at least some of the
officials on the island anticipated a return of the Empire, and felt it necessary to maintain
communications with Ravenna.
[44]
In 410, the civitates successfully organized a defense, saw to
the administration of daily matters, and conducted foreign affairs. It is regrettable for the
historian that there is virtually no written record for the next two decades.


The Warrior Bishop
Fortunately, the Gallic chronicler Prosper of Aquitaine provides a reliably dated event that gives
a glimpse of life in the third and fourth decades of the century, with the visit to the island by
Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus, Bishop of Troyes, in 429. After reporting of the
corruption of the British churches by the Pelagian bishop Agricola, Prosper remarks that at the
persuasion of the deacon Palladius, Pope Celestine sent Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, as his
representative, and having rejected the heretics, directed the British to the catholic faith.
[45]
Despite the characteristically cryptic nature of Prosper s chronicle entry, he is an unusually
good source, writing in 433, only four years after the event. Curiously, Palladius and the Pope
sent a Gallic bishop to deal with the problems of the church in Britain, indicating that there was
no one on the island, lay or ecclesiastical, that had the authority to take care of a heresy. By this
time both Roman law and Catholic doctrine clearly opposed to Pelagianism and empowered
citizens and clerics to punish the heretics.
[46]
Yet there is no evidence that anyone in Britain did
so prior to Germanus s visit. The ecclesiastical administration did not seem to have the power to
do so. This could indicate several things, most likely the strength of those landowners loyal to
Pelagianism and the growing lack of communication between the British and Roman churches.
Civic power was also curiously uninvolved. Civic officials were apparently unaware of
Germanus s visit and do not take part in the debates between Germanus and the Pelagian
officials. As Thompson points out, where else in the Western world were civic officials not
involved in matters so vital to the Church?
[47]
The British civil and ecclesiastical administrations
appear to have been on a decidedly different course from that of the continent.

Germanus s visit coincided with imperial success in northern Gaul. The Roman general Aetius
established himself as the greatest military power in the west between the years 425 and 432. In
429 he campaigned along the Rhine, in 430 in Raetia, in 431 in Noricum. In 432 he was awarded
a consulship. The military successes of Aetius and the missions of Germanus to Britain and
Palladius to Ireland occur in the same years. While there is no evidence of coordination between
the Church and Empire at this period, it seems likely given their common interests in the region.
The connection between events in Armorica and Britain during the rebellion of 409 is clear, as
was another one in 446. As with the events of 410, events in Britain in 429 connected closely to
events on the continent, even if the island was beginning to go its own way.
[48]


The story of Germanus s exploits on the island is contained in the Vita sancti Germani of
Constantius of Lyon.
[49]
Historians who do not dismiss Vita as being only of interest as a
hagiography have found several intriguing details concerning life in Britain in the 420s.
[50]
This
mission is unique, the first recorded instance of a pope sending a representative over there,
outside the Empire.
[51]
In twenty short years Britain spun far enough away from the Roman orbit
to be considered a foreign nation in need of papal correction. When Germanus and Lupus arrived
in Britain they were met by multitudes who had heard of their coming via rumor.
[52]
That civic
officials were among the surprised multitudes at the site of Germanus s landings indicates they
were not aware of his mission. The two prelates began to preach, not only in the churches, but at
the crossroads, in the fields, and in out-of-the-way parts of the countryside.
[53]
Constantius
reports nothing of the cities, nor of the civitates or the old Roman provinces. He speaks only
vaguely of regions in which Germanus was preaching.
[54]
Constantius is very specific when he
reports of political affairs and cities on the continent. That he does not speak of the cities in
Britain does not mean they were absent in the 420s, but may be an indication that their influence
was waning.
[55]
In any case, by the 480s Constantius had no knowledge of their importance, and
there was no one alive that could have told him otherwise.

The hallelujah victory highlights the absence of another important Late Antique figure on
the island, that of the warrior bishop. Constantius says a force of Saxons and Picts had joined
forces to make war upon the Britons.
[56]
Germanus took control of the army and by
employing tactics characteristic of late Roman military strategy led his troops in an ambush
of the invaders. After stationing the Britons on the rim of a valley through which the invaders
were marching, he has them shout hallelujah three times. The echo of this mighty roar is said
to have sent the Picts and Saxons in flight, and the Britons were awarded a bloodless victory.
The veracity of this story has been discussed elsewhere.
[57]
It may also tell as much about
Constantius s Gaul as it does about Germanus s Britain. However, the fact that a foreign
bishop took it upon himself to organize the British defenses suggests that no such figure
existed on the island.
[58]
This is a major departure from the continent. The Late Antique
bishops in Gaul were usually from the Roman administrative class and were vital in the
preservation of order in the fifth century. They were a crucial component in the transition
from the Roman Empire to the barbarian kingdoms. Their administrative and military
capabilities were vital in the preservation of city life in the west. Yet in Britain, no one
similar to a Caesarius of Arles appears in the historical record.
[59]
Nor does archaeology
provide conclusive evidence of the Late Antique cathedral-based cities in Britain similar to
those that formed on the continent. The absence of Late Antique warrior-bishops may indeed
be an important reason for their absence.

Constantius introduces a number of individuals on the island who may help piece together a
few more facts about British life. The Pelagians that Germanus meets are described as
wealthy and powerful, indeed flaunting their wealth, in dazzling robes, surrounded by a
crowd of flatterers.
[60]
These may well be those wealthy landowners who took part in the
rebellion of 409. Regardless, the depiction of wealth on the island may speak to a temporary
economic upturn that would have occurred in the absence of oppressive Roman taxation,
before Saxon activity became significant enough to have a disruptive effect on British
society. Despite their entourage and wardrobe, Germanus thoroughly defeated and eventually
exiled the Pelagians, revealing their lack of political power and prestige on the island.
[61]


The two civic officials that Constantius mentions provide a small window into the
administration of the island. On his first visit Germanus meets a man of tribunican power.
[62]
It is important that Constantius did not give him an exact title. His power was like that of
a tribune; Constantius was groping for a description that his audience, still familiar with
Roman administration, would understand. This official was not Roman and was not acting in
a Roman manner. He is not interested in the heresy, only in the power of Germanus to heal
his daughter.
[63]
The second administrator was a certain Elafius, described as a chief man of
the region. Again, he was accorded no Roman title or connected to any Roman administrative
unit. He was similarly interested in Germanus s healing powers, and there is no indication of
his involvement in the Pelagian controversy.
[64]
That there is no evidence of a civic official
on the island who takes part in Germanus s efforts is strange. It would be difficult to find a
parallel on the continent, considering the civic and ecclesiastical obsession with heresy
during the late antique period. The government of the British civitates operated without some
of the individuals, institutions, and ideological concerns that shaped life on the continent.


The Groans of the Britons

So the miserable remnant sent off a letter again, to Aetius. To Aetius three times
consul, the groans of the Britons . And further on: the barbarians push us to the
sea, the sea pushes us back to the barbarians; between these two kinds of death,
we are either slaughtered or drowned.
[65]


This plaintive cry, first reported by Gildas and later by Bede, paints a far bleaker picture of
Britain in the late 440 s than the vigorous, self-reliant society of 409 depicted by Zosimus.
What happened that the citizens of Britain would send such a letter to the Empire? The last
section of this paper will look at some of the factors, both internal and external, that brought
our civitates period to a close.

It would be a mistake to imagine the Britons speaking with one voice. We have seen the
activity of a pro-imperial party in the missions of Germanus and in the letter to Aetius in the
late 440s. Later, in the 460s, the British general Riothamus led an army of several thousand
exiles in Gaul.
[66]
The failure of civic officials in Britain to provide peace and security, as
well as the desire for a significant section of the society to return to the Empire, indicates a
society divided and under considerable stress. The exiles to Armorica likely took with them a
great deal of treasure and administrative expertise. The differences between those Britons
with local interests and those with imperial interests were becoming more pronounced by the
middle of the century.

Archaeological evidence helps fill in the picture of a society under stress. The evidence for
urban continuity is the subject of considerable debate, but there is agreement on a few points.
Building with stone appears to have died out in the early fifth century, and evidence of
mosaics disappears at this time.
[67]
The pottery industry also drastically contracted in this
period, changing from a large scale manufacturing and trading operation to a purely local
one, possibly centered around the villa.
[68]
The money economy was also in decline. The
legions, probably removed most of the gold from the island, leaving the British economy
with Theodosian bronze coinage. By the 440s this supply would have been considerably
worn. Supplies of silver also disappeared; hoarding and Saxon plunder are the most likely
causes.
[69]
Independent civic government would have been difficult to maintain given these
stresses on the society and the opportunities for local strongmen became greater. While there
is evidence for the continued importance of the former Roman provincial capitols,
the civitates seem to take on a purely defensive function. The decay of the Roman
infrastructure, the decline and irrelevance of the cities, the disappearance of economic
activity, and the lack of a formidable ecclesiastical structure combined by the 440s to create
an unstable political situation on the island. The coming of the Saxons and the imperial
situation on the continent heralded the end of an era, and it is to these developments that we
now turn.

The Adventus Saxonum marked the beginning, or at least the rapid acceleration of, the
process in which British society broke apart into the petty tyrannies made famous by Gildas.
The Gallic Chronicle of 441 reports: The British provinces, which to this time had suffered
various defeats and misfortunes, are reduced to Saxon rule.
[70]
The Chronicle of 511 adds an
even more cryptic note: Britain abandoned by the Romans passed into the power of the
Saxons.
[71]
The chronological problems of the Chronicles have been previously
noted.
[72]
What is important here is that the Saxon presence is having a dramatic enough
effect on the island to be noted on the continent. There is evidence of warlords (exemplified
by the pseudo-historical Vortigern) inviting large numbers of Saxons to aid in their conflicts
against Pictish raiders (and probably other warlords.) The military situation obviously
changed since 409, when the Britons provided for their own defense.

Despite the fact that the Saxons werenow acting as foederates, there is no evidence of the
regulated system of hospitalitas that existed in Gaul and Italy. On the continent barbarian
kings were given a stake in the land in return for its defense. That land was administered by
former Roman officials, much as they had in the days of the empire.
[73]
These administrators
had long since left, or been expelled, from Britain. With no personal interest in defending
former imperial territory, the Saxons were compelled to seize the land for themselves. The
system of payments from the British eventually broke down. The wars of the Saxon federates
began. Gildas reports that the barbarians plundered from sea to sea.
[74]
The Britons suffered
from a famine which compelled many of them without delay to yield themselves up to their
cruel prosecutors while others hid in the woods and mountains and continue a kind of
guerilla war.
[75]
Gildas s dramatic description does not depict the situation on the whole of
the island but it does indicate a new political reality.
[76]
The wealthy society of 429 seems
already a distant memory.

The last chance for the Romans to intervene in Britain was in 447-8. The consul Aetius was
in Armorica dealing with another revolt, and it is at this time, I believe, the Britons wrote him
their famous letter.
[77]
A party on the island still had a stake in the Roman Empire. British
society was crumbling from both internal and external pressures, as we have seen. The
sovereign government reported by Zosimus was no longer tenable. But no help would be
coming from the Empire. Aetius s death in 455 marked the end of British involvement in the
imperial orbit, and the next one hundred fifty years heralded the development of the Anglo-
Saxon kingdoms in the east and the Celtic kingdoms in the west of the island.
[78]
While we
can not be sure how long the civitates were able to provide for their own defense, or when
warlords first appear on the British political landscape, the fact the Romans can no longer
intervene signals an inevitable end.

Gildas, writing in the first decades of the sixth century, knew little of the events of the late
fourth and early fifth centuries. His memory of the Romans is one of harsh persecutions and
a usurper named Magnus Maximus. He was ignorant of Germanus, Pelagianism, and
Constantius Life, which was probably written around the time of his birth. To him the
eastern part of the island was a Saxon terra incognita. He knew nothing of the thousands of
exiles who fled the island and established a new life in Armorica.
[79]
Despite evidence of his
Latin education, Gildas s world was small. He was concerned with the morals and behavior
of a few tyrants, Celtic warlords who had seized power in the west of the island. The society
of the Britons of 409 had vanished from the historical memory, its people and their struggles
and accomplishments lay silent. The Late Antique world of the civitates was gone. The age
of Gildas was, to use Christopher Snyder s phrase, an age of tyrants.
[80]




The author would like to acknowledge Professor Jarbel Rodriguez for his patience, and Lynn
Slobodien, without whose help this paper would have been impossible. Thanks.






1
Gildas, On The Ruin of Britain, ed. and trans. J .A. Giles [book on-line] II.2 (1999). Available
from the On-line Resource Book for
MedievalStudies,http:// www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gildas-full.html; Internet.
[2]
David Dumville s Sub-Roman Britain: History and Legend presents an elegant argument
against using myth as history, especially the Arthurian myths. He writes, the fact of the matter is
that there is no historical evidence about Arthur; we must reject him from our histories and,
above all, from the titles of our books, History 62 (1977), 173-192.
[3]
Ian Wood, The Fall of The Western Empire and the End of Roman Britain, Britannia 18
(1987): 251.
[4]
Some have stretched this period even further. Kenneth Dark saw a strong Roman continuity
until the late eighth century. Civitas to Kingdom (London and New York: Leicester University
Press, 1994). In a later work, he amended his end date for the period to the defeat of Cadwallon
of Gwynedd in 633. He cites this as the end of any aspirations of returning to a unified British-
ruled Britain. This is, in my opinion, far too late. The British kingdoms from their inceptions
lacked the material culture and the political will for anything like unification to be possible.
Dark, Britain and the End of the Roman Empire (Charleston, S.C: Tempus, 2000), 229.
[5]
E. A. Thompson, Britain, A.D. 406-410. Brittania 8 (1977): 303-318. A classic introduction
with the characteristic Thompson flair.
[6]
Gildas, The Ruin, III.27. Britain has kings, but they are tyrants &. For a closer at the early
British tyrants of Gildas, see David Dumville, Gildas and Maelgwn: Problems of Dating,
in Gildas: New Approaches, ed. Dumville and Lapidge (Woodbridge: Suffolk, 1984),85-106.
[7]
Gildas, The Ruin, II.14.
[8]
P.J . Casey, Magnus Maximus in Britain: a reappraisal, in The End of Roman Britain, ed. P.J .
Casey (Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1979),66-79.
[9]
Gildas, The Ruin, II.15.
[10]
Mollie Miller, Stilicho s Pictish War, Britannia 6 (1975): 141-145. An excellent use of the
poet Claudian to fill in the blanks left by Gildas.
[11]
Dumville, Sub-Roman Britain, 180.
[12]
Miller, Stilicho, 145.
[13]
Thompson, 406-410, 303.
[14]
Peter Salway, Roman Britain (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 317.
A useful discussion of the connection between the policies of Honorius and Stilicho and their
effect on the rebellion of 406.
[15]
Salway, Roman Britain, 316. Salway provides a variety of explanations for the lack of Roman
payment after 402, but I agree with him that the best explanation is that Honorius was strapped
for cash, and simply could no longer pay the troops in Britain. The famous Honorian rescript
may have been a formal recognition of a long-standing imperial policy.
[16]
Shepard Frere, Britannia (London and New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987), 353-
375; Thompson, 406-410, 303; J .F. Drinkwater, The Usurpers Constantine III and J ovinus,
Britannia 29 (1998): 271. Michael Kulikowski has recently revived the argument that the
crossing took place on 31 December 405. While his argument rests on fixing Prosper s
chronicle, a dangerous proposition, moving the barbarian incursion to 405 solves the problem
of motive for the first legionary revolt in Britain in 406. Barbarians in Gaul, Usurpers in Britain,
Brittania 31 (2000): 325-332.
[17]
Municeps has also been translated as inhabitant of a place and Gratian could therefore have
been a soldier, Kulikowski, Barbarians, 332.
[18]
Thompson, 406-410, 305, points out that scholars have been eager to guess at the motives for
the murders of Marcus and Gratian, despite the complete lack of evidence. The Roman Legions
desire to leave for the continent in the wake of the news of the invasions remains our best guess.
[19]
Zosimus, New History, trans. J ames J . Buchanan and Harold T. Davis, in The Saxon
Shore VI.3 (2001).
[20]
Drinkwater, The Usurpers, 272.
[21]
Drinkwater, The Usurpers, 275.
[22]
Drinkwater, The Usurpers, 269-287. This section includes an extremely useful synthesis of
recent scholarship.
[23]
Zosimus, New History, VI.5. Zosimus is considered to be using the work of Olympiodorus of
Thebes for this period. For an excellent introduction to Olympiodorus see J .F. Matthews,
Olympiodorus Of Thebes And The History Of The West (A.D. 407-425), Journal of Roman
Studies 60 (1970) 79-97. For Zosimus see E. A. Thompson, Zosimus on the End of Roman
Britain, Antiquity 30 (1956), 163-167.
[24]
The Gallic Chronicle of 452 [book on-line] in Welsh History: Historical Texts; available from
http:// www.webexcel.ndirect.co.uk/gwarnant/hanes/texts/textsgallic.htm; Internet.
[25]
The reliabilty of the Chronicles has been exhaustively debated. For the affirmative, see M.E.
J ones and P.J . Casey, The Gallic Chronicle restored: a chronology for the Anglo-Saxon invasions
and the end of Roman Britain, Britannia 19 (1988): 367-398. For the negative, see R.W.
Burgess, The Dark Ages return to fifth century Britain: the restored Gallic Chronicle exploded,
Britannia 21 (1990): 185-196. Burgess dismisses the Chronicle as often a mess and doubts that
it reflects what was going on in Britain in 441. I believe the Chronicle to be valuable despite its
flawed chronology. For a good overview, see Steven Muhlberger, The Gallic Chronicle of 452
and its Authority for British events, Britannia 14 (1983): 23-33.
[26]
Thompson, 406-410, 313-314, from Olympiodorus, frag. 40
[27]
Thompson, 406-410, esp. pp. 314-16. For background on peasant revolts see J . F.
Drinkwater, The Bacaudae of Fifth Century Gaul. In Fifth Century Gaul: a crisis of
identity?, ed. J .F. Drinkwater and Hugh Elton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
[28]
Thompson, 406-410, 314-316. An argument he stayed with throughout his distinguished
career. The history of Armorica in this period and its relevance to Britain needs more
exploration.
[29]
Christopher Snyder, An Age of Tyrants (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1998), 137-163. A thorough look at contemporary Romano-British archaeology.
[30]
J . F. Drinkwater, The Bacaudae of Fifth Century Gaul, 213. The author argues that fleeing
the land was a choice open to lesser aristocrats and gentry. I agree with him that peasants would
have been too psychologically and economically tied to the land to flee to the bacaudae.
[31]
J .N.L. Myres, Pelagius And The End Of Roman Rule In Britain, Journal of Roman
Studies 50 (1960): 32. The article begins with a good, concise explanation of Pelagianism.
[32]
Myres, Pelagius, 33.
[33]
Myres, Pelagius, 34. Myres s assertion that the whole circumstances of Germanus visits both
in 429 and in the 440 s show that the movement had attained such political authority in Britain as
to be thought a serious menace to the orthodox regime in Gaul & is an exaggeration of
conditions in both territories. Neither Constantius or Prosper speaks of the situation in the Gallic
or British churches as being menaced or even seriously threatened.
[34]
W. Liebeschutz, Did the Pelagian Movement Have Social Aims?, Historia 12 (1963): 227-
241.
[35]
Dark, Civitas to Kingdom, 55-57.
[36]
Salway, Roman Britain, 347-348.
[37]
Drinkwater, The Usurpers, 286.
[38]
Drinkwater, The Usurpers, 295-6.
[39]
Myres, Pelagius, 32-33.
[40]
See Zosimus s account, above, p. 6.
[41]
Zosimus, New History, VI.10.
[42]
Drinkwater, The Usurpers, 286.
[43]
Italics mine.
[44]
Salway, Roman Britain, 330. While the rescript is often used as evidence of a little Britain
party still loyal to the emperor, Salway has adroitly pointed out that it may have been no more
than a readiness to barter submission to imperial authority in return for assistance.
[45]
Prosper, Chronicle in Snyder, Age of Tyrants, 38.
[46]
E.A. Thompson, St. Germanus of Auxerre and the End of Roman Britain, (Suffolk: Boydell,
1984), 28-9. Thompson points out a law of Honorius dated 30 April 418 that empowered anyone
to arrest and bring to trial those suspected of the heresy. It is somewhat curious that this law did
not make it into the Theodosian Code and may indicate the short life of Pelagianism.
[47]
Thompson, St. Germanus, 27. Throughout the entire sequence of events during both of
Germanus visits, the British rulers are simply not there. Of all the oddities of history of Britain
at this time, none is more surprising than this.
[48]
Ian Wood, The Fall of The Western Empire and the End of Roman Britain, Britannia 18
(1987): 252.
[49]
Constantius of Lyon, Vita sancti Germani, ed. and trans. Thomas Noble and Thomas Head,
in Vortigern Studies (2001).
[50]
Ian Wood, The End of Roman Britain: Continental Evidence and Parallels, in Gildas: New
Approaches, 6-11. The author takes a wary look at the Life, closely examining the balance of fact
and allegory. His opinions are powerful and should be kept in mind by anyone using
Constantius as a resource for British history.
[51]
In locis suis; see Thompson, St. Germanus, 7.
[52]
Constantius, Vita, Chapter 14. Constantius uses the more poetic whose coming had been
foretold by the enemies of souls.
[53]
Constantius, Vita, Chapter 14.
[54]
Thompson, St.Germanus, 8-9.
[55]
For an excellent look at the late antique city, see W. Liebeschutz, The End of the Ancient
City, in The City in Late Antiquity, ed. J ohn Rich, (London: Routledge, 1992), 1-49. For Gildas s
famous statement on the cities see Phillip Dixon, The cities are not as populated as they once
were, in Rich, The City.
[56]
Constantius, Vita, Chapter 17.
[57]
Michael E. J ones, The History of the Alleluja Victory, Albion 18.3 (Fall 1986): 363-373. The
article provides an excellent look at late Roman military strategy. J ones makes a strong case for
Germanus s military background.
[58]
J arbel Rodriguez questions this assumption, suggesting that Germanus may simply have had
more status and was acting in his role as a papal legate. However, relations between the Gallic
Church and Rome were strained at this time, and Germanus relationship to the Pope is unclear.
See R.W. Mathiesen, Hilarius, Germanus, and Lupus: The Aristocratic Background of the
Chelidonius Affair, Phoenix 33 (1979): 160-9.
[59]
William Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles: Life, Testament, Letters, (Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press, 1994).
[60]
Constantius, Vita, Chapter 14.
[61]
Constantius, Vita, Chapter 14. Thompson, St. Germanus suggested that the British bishops
themselves had joined the heresy, and that is why we do not meet them in Vita. If this is so, it is
hard to imagine a British church surviving after their expulsion from the island in the 430s. That
there is no evidence in the writings of Patrick or Gildas of Pelagianism makes it unlikely that
Pelagianism was that pervasive.
[62]
Constantius, Vita, Chapter 15.
[63]
Thompson, St. Germanus, 26.
[64]
Constantius, Vita, Chapter 26. Thompson, St. Germanus, 7, 26-28.
[65]
Gildas, The Ruin, II.20. Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. and trans.
McClure and Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 25.
[66]
Wood, The Fall, 261. Snyder, Age of Tyrants, 83.
[67]
Snyder, Age of Tyrants, 153-154. Dark, Civitas,174-178. Frere, Britannia, 365-366.
[68]
Frere, Britannia, 365.
[69]
Frere, Britannia, 363-366. C.H.V. Sutherland Coinage in Britain in the Fifth and Sixth
Centuries, in Dark Age Britain, ed. D.B. Harden (London: Methuen, 1956), 3-10.
[70]
Chronicle, Theodosius II XVIII/XVIIII
[71]
Chronicle of 511, Theodosius II XVI
[72]
See above, 7.
[73]
Walter Goffart, Barbarians and Romans, (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1980). This text
includes a detailed discussion of the accommodation of the barbarian kingdoms. See
Thompson, St. Germanus, 110-111 for the absence of such a system in Britain. For a discussion
of what system of accommodation was being used, and what Gildas knew about it, see
Thompson, Gildas and the History of Britain, Britannia 10 (1980): 217-218.
[74]
Gildas, The Ruin, II.24.
[75]
Gildas, The Ruin, II.25.
[76]
Thompson, Gildas for a discussion of the problems of where Gildas was writing and what
part of Britain he was writing about. See also David Dumville, The Chronology of De Excidio
Britanniae, Book I, in Gildas, New Approaches.
[77]
Michael E. J ones The Date of the Letter to the Britons to Aetius, Bulletin of the Board of
Celtic Studies 37 (1990): 281-290, suggests an earlier date. Bede, following Gildas, placed the
event in 446. Bede, EH, 25.
[78]
See Salway, Roman Britain, 333-353, for a similar perspective.
[79]
Thompson, St.Germanus, 115.
[80]
Snyder, Age of Tyrants, especially preface.