Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
WAS CLIMATE CHANGE AND PLAGUE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNREST IN BRITAIN IN THE DARK AGES?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
I was wondering as the Climate in Britain changed in around AD400 to become much colder and wetter than the previous two centuries, could this be the factor behind the Famines and Plagues referred to by Gildas? (Interestingly the 鈥淵ellow Plague鈥 seemed to have affected the Brythons but not the Anglo Saxons.)
It seems strange that the emigrations of the Brythons were to Armorica and not into Wales or Cornwall.
Were the Emigrations in fact to escape from plague and famine as opposed to the small number of invaders?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 2
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Hi TA
I'm just trying to find a reference to worsening climatic conditions around the 5th century AD. Got any sources? I'm aware of the Little Ice Age beginning around the 12th/13th centuries but can't recall (off the top of my head) a worsening climate in Europe (or more specifically Britain) in the 4th/5th centuries.
I like the idea though that the migrations to Armorica could be from disease and famine. Worthy of more discussion from those whose knowledge of the period is better than mine. -
Message 3
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Hi Stogger,
If climate change in the Early Medieval Period interests you have you read Mike Ballie's 'Exodus to Arthur'?
Baillie is a Professor of Palaeoecology from Belfast. His big thing is dendrochronology for which he is a reliable source. In his book he identifies, very convincingly, periods of climactic deterioration by their widespread effects on tree-rings. Some of these he explains, less convincingly, by close encounters between the Earth and comets. This explanation is necessary to overcome the absence of volcanic material in Arctic ice-cores from some of his periods.
Anyway one of these times is 540 AD. Climactic deterioration might have had tremendous consequences: Byzantine plagues, the King Arthur myths etc. You can see that Baillie is not backward in drawing historical conclusions from his data, and may justly be accused of 'environmental determinism'.
On the other hand on the evidence he provides of climactic change in the early 6th century can hardly be doubted.
TP -
Message 4
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
If climate change in the Early Medieval Period interests you have you read Mike Ballie's 'Exodus to Arthur'? 听
I haven't, but I did study Holocene climates at university!
Although I don't recall studying any climatic deterioration in the centuries mentioned, that does not mean I doubt it - I merely cannot remember (and I don't think the hangover is helping!!). If there's good dendrochronological evidence then that's fine with me.
Over what geographical area were the trees from that sourced his study? -
Message 5
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Hi Stoggler,
Now you ask a highly relevant question I can't lay my hand on the volume. His chair was at Belfast and I think he was using Irish bog oak for his analysis. There is also a master sequence of oak annual rings from Germany which I believe showed the same phenomena.
If you're worried, and despite the title, there is very little about King Arthur (or Offa's Dyke!) in the book.
Best wishes,
Derek -
Message 6
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
or Offa's Dyke!听
Lovely memories!!
It could be an interesting read.
Also, any idea if there is any written sources from the time that refer to poors winters, floods, droughts, and other poor climatic conditions? And does pollen analysis back this up (oh, how I remember doing my own pollen analysis from core samples taken from New Forest bogs! Not the most interesting of pursuits. CAn still remember the Latin names for certain trees though as a result!) -
Message 7
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Ooh, interesting. Just been reading the Mike Baillie article on Wikipedia and surprised his name doesn't ring any bells from my uni days as he did a lot of his work in the 80s before I studied.
Wikipedia says:
the AD 540 event in particular is attested in tree-ring chronologies from Siberia through Europe and North and South America. This event coincides with the second largest ammonium signal in the Greenland ice in the last two millennia听
It does also say that the 540AD event does not appear in literary records, which is unusual (IMHO) -
Message 8
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Hi Stoggler
Here are some reference sites re climate change - they all seem to indicate a change around AD400 to AD450.
This is a reference to Michael Jones regarding Climate Change.
World Weather patterns:
British Weather Patterns
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 9
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Excellent - thanks TA. Will give me something to peruse for the next hour or so left in the office this week
-
Message 10
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Saturday, 4th April 2009
Hi Stoggler
Here is another reference to a downturn in the 5th Century:
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 11
Posted by LavenderBlueSky (U13842100) on Saturday, 4th April 2009
Hello TA.
Thanks for the links on temperature change. Several years of rain and lower temperatures could certainly have an effect on a people's ability to survive.
Not just in Wales but in other parts of Britain, there are tales told of drowned villages. Constant rainfall could result in higher water levels.
One incident is a commentary on the Welsh Triads:
Way down on the page, this appears: "where before that event 60 fortified towns were reckoned there, superior to all the towns and fortifications in Cymru, with the exception of Caerllion upon Usk. The hundred of Gwaelod was a dominion of Gwydnow Garanihir, king of Cardigan. This event happened in the time of Ambrosius."
I've been looking for references to the yellow plague but can find very little until the mid 6th century. One snippet from a Cornish site on the lives of saints mentions the following:
During the 5th and 6th centuries, Celts fleeing the yellow plague in Wales arrived in Cornwall and were thought to have gone south to Armorica where land was more plentiful. It isn't clear if this happened in the 5th century, but other sites mention saints leaving for Armorica during the 6th century. -
Message 12
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 5th April 2009
I have heard it said that Krakatoa blew its lid off in 540AD give or take. The dust would have affected the world's climate for a year or two.
Given that their agricultural technology at that time was not as robust as ours this could have been critical to the continuation of cultivation in some areas.
Once again I must enter a caveat: vulcanology and climate are not my areas of specific expertise. -
Message 13
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 5th April 2009
There's a reference to it here Stanilic;
At a slight tangent, there's also a reference to an impact crater at Sirente in Italy and it's possible influence on the development of Christianity.
Trike. -
Message 14
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Sunday, 5th April 2009
Hi LavenderBlueSky
Thanks for that.
As you have pointed out, I think that undoubtedly from the various sources that in the 6th century in Britain there was major change in the climate with an increase in rainfall, falling temperatures with associated crop failure leading to both famine and plague, which even a Welsh King caught and died.
These events were right across Britain and the plague especially led to mass panic and the ensuing emigration of Brythons to Armorica.
There are also a number of references that the Yellow Plague did not affect the Anglo Saxons, which may be down to the way they lived.
In the 5th century however there is a case to state that the climate starts to go down hill around AD400 and accelerates around AD450. There is a report that St Albans (Verulamium) was occupied until 450AD when it collapsed due to loss of trade and the plague.
So in the 5th century there are references to poor weather, famine and plague which is supported by Gildas who lived only a few years after these events.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 15
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 5th April 2009
Hi TA,
I really admire your confidence in using the word 'undoubtedly' in any post about Dark Age events.
The climactic deterioration around 535-540 does seem to be as secure as these determinations ever are. At least the evidence of historical archives is supported by modern palaeobotany.
That the cause of the climate change was a volcanic eruption is suggested by ice-core analysis. Actually dating an eruption is quite difficult. You may be able to radiocarbon date organic material from deposits immediately before, and immediately after, the ejected volcanic debris that interests you. Alternatively tephra from an eruption may be intruded into an archaeological context of known date.
That the falling temperature would have lead to widespread crop failure is less certain but highly plausible. That several years of such famine might lead to chronic malnutrition and and increased death rate seems reasonable too.
Whether these circumstances would have promoted a plague is more doubtful, and it is really hard to imagine a Europe wide pandemic that selectively affected Britons (but not 'Anglo-Saxons') and which could be escaped by a short sea-voyage to Brittany. My limitations in the matter of Welsh annals has long been exposed so can you gave a reference to these events? The difficulty in attributing the collapse of Verulamium to the collapse of trade in 450 is having to imagine what type of trade was occurring from 408 to 449!
Have you had any thoughts about what the 'Yellow Plague' might have been? If it was the skin of the victims that went yellow then this suggests that the infectious agent caused liver damage. Yellow Fever itself can cause deadly epidemics but its modern vectors don't extend as far north as Europe. This might not always have been the case of course.
Volcanoes can kill in other ways of course. There was a 主播大秀 TV programme about 2 years ago. If I remember the details correctly an Icelandic volcano called Laki erupted at the end of the 18th century. Britain and Western Europe were affected by deadly gases, and sulphuric acid aerosols (yellowish perhaps), carried here by weather systems at that time. People died in the fields. This fissure eruption also produced a large lava flow which must have been very bad news for the Icelanders.
A really interesting topic. Best wishes,
TP -
Message 16
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Sunday, 5th April 2009
Hi TP
As usual a pleasure to read your post.
To take the points on in some sort of sequence:
Firstly, although I understand that the official removal of the last Legion is AD407 and the Roman Polity disappears from Britain in AD408 and that this is supported by the lack of pottery and coinage after this date.
There does appear to be an army (perhaps made up of Auxiliaries) that remains because there are withdrawals to the continent at various times of armies that stops with a final withdrawal in AD440. There also appears to be ongoing building of Roman buildings up until AD430 including villas.
So perhaps there was a reduced operational Roman Polity up until AD440 therefore trade was a possibility in parts of the country - maybe.
So another question is how did the Germans arrive 鈥渦ninvited鈥 in AD428 and AD429 if there was a Roman Army in Britain and around 3 million Brythons?
Secondly there was according to climatologists a downward temperature change starting in around AD400 and continuing all the way through to AD900 with a number of eruptions during this period.
(Bottom of the Page)
There is also a reference to extensive flooding or increase in water levels all over Britain during the 6th Century including Wales, the Fens and London.
Thirdly the Yellow Plague equates I believe to Yellow Fever which is mosquito borne from human to human and like you I was surprised that the Anglo Saxons appeared to be immune but there are a number of references in recent books and web sites that refer to this.
There are reports of the Yellow Plague in the 6th century and that panic was created by the plague that led to emigrations of the Brythons and indeed some went to Armorica. The reference to the Welsh king is as follows.
(Look around AD549)
(Another Reference but around AD547)
Apart from this there was the Justinian plague of AD540 through to AD590 which although started in the Eastern Roman Empire also reached the Mediterranean and the rest of the Empire which caused a huge loss of life 鈥 some 100 million people.
I had forgotten about the gas from volcanoes but this is certainly in interesting thought and we do know from the Chernoble debacle that poisons travel around the globe.
Anyway there are a lot of recorded pointers to climate change, famine, plague which I believe had huge influence on the events of the 6th century.
You are of course correct that 鈥渦ndoubtedly鈥 is a bit strong about the Dark Ages but there does seem to be a lot of corroborative evidence as well as the usual amount of mystery.
My contention is that not only were there famines and plagues in the 6th century but also in the 5th century as Gildas states which again influenced events.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 17
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 5th April 2009
Hi TP,
Your last post deserves a much fuller discussion that I can provide at the end of a long day, but I'll be back tomorrow.
Meanwhile may I observe that your 'long chronology' for Roman Britain with villas being built in 430 and the army finally leaving in 440 is highly heterodox. Where have you got this from? Docfortune and I have been discussing this briefly on the 410 AD thread.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 18
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Hi TP
Highly heterodox 鈥 beautiful wording.
I agree that the point of there being armies in Britain is controversial and unorthodox and yes I have been following the debates with Doc Fortune on the AD410 thread (he has also contributed to this thread quite extensively regarding the Timelines and involvement of the Roman Armies as he sees it).
There was obviously communication with the Roman Commander of Gaul (Aetius) in AD446 (Groans of the Britons) so at this stage there would still appear to be an organised state asking for help 鈥 the interesting point is why this should happen 30 odd years after the Romans had apparently left and the country had split into various groups?
Again it is interesting to see if some of the British Provinces were still thriving at this time and if others that weren鈥檛.
With regards to Vortigern 鈥 how did he spring up so quickly as to be the High King of the whole of Britain?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 19
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 6th April 2009
In regards to the last question, Romans, especially at the end of their Empire in the west, accepted/tolerated the existence of kings leading "barbaric nations" (by them seen as "local leaders / influencers") within the Empire. That was the case especially for those mercenary forces, practically barbarians accepted in the Roman army together with their armour+type of fighting (there was no "legionarisation" of those mercenaries - thus by 5th century Roman armies fighting barbarians were not very easily distinguishable.
Hence Vortigern could just derive from a family accepted by Romans as "local influencers", i.e. them self-proclaimed kings. When Romans left, they would be the main authority. Of course there would be others too (especially considering that Britain had many tribes). Hence the title would be more of a title than a reality and perhaps there Vortigern needed that little extra-hand by those Saxons (plus he had a thing for blond women!). -
Message 20
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Hi E_Nikolaos_E
I think that the last part of the argument with regards to the ladies has finally won me over.
Kinf Regards - TA -
Message 21
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Hi E_Nikolaos_E
I agree with the "Client" Kings concept - as I understand it the Romans had already set up three seperate "Client Kingdoms" in South Wales to defend the coasts there towards the end of their era however Vortigern (if indeed this was a single person) seems to have had enormous sway over all the leaders to invite in the Germans to help against the Picts et al.
Again why would a few "keels" have been successful against the Picts when a "High King" would have had thousands of warriors at his command and yet had to ask for help from the equivalent of a small war band?
If this was the case it seems that Vortigern was not as powerful as portrayed.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 22
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Was he a "High King" of Britain?
Gildas didn't call him or refer to Vortigern as such, but Bede writing a few centuries later did. -
Message 23
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Hi TA,
It's really encouraging to see so much interest being taken in the end of Roman Britain but honestly some very doubtful ideas are currently receiving support. My reply is rather long so I will split it into two. My main point is that to try to understand this era you have to use both historical and archaeological information, and to give neither automatic primacy.
I've tried to find the last 'mainline' historians of Roman Britain who subscribed to a 'long' chronology; I think that it must be Collingwood & Myres in their famous 'Roman Britain and the English Settlements', written just before the last war. Their survey of the evidence touching on this point is still worth reading, although I think that they (and you) have probably reached the wrong conclusion.
The late Roman army consisted of a mobile field army (comitatenses) and fixed defensive troops (limitanei). In some cases 'legion' survived as a title, but the units were not the mainline troops of the 1st and 2nd centuries. Your use of the term 'auxiliaries' is also highly anachronistic. Plenty of 'barbarian' forces were still employed in the army but the new 'laeti' and 'foederati' were wholly different entities. Again the titles of auxiliary cohorts survived into the Notitia Dignitatum but after the reforms of Diocletian the structure and function of the units had changed.
In 407- 408 Honorius was recognised as western emperor by the majority of the empire's citizens, although Stilicho still exercised executive power. But Constantine III claimed the imperial throne from his territorial base of Britain and Gaul. By their supporters they were both presumably regarded as the 'true' emperor. Everyone seems to agree that Stilcho's dispositions against Alaric around 397 鈥 402 would have resulted in his withdrawal of army units from Britain. The units involved would, of necessity, have been those of the mobile field army. In 406 the newly 'elected' Constantine III took what British troops he could muster across the channel to counter a barbarian invasion of Gaul. Doubtless he would have employed any mobile troops that were left, but to make a credible force he must surely have called on the limitanei as well. To call this process the official 'removal' of the last legion is highly misleading. Constantine III, as emperor, was forming an army to operate in another part of his empire. Whether it contained a unit with a legionary title is impossible to say, but there is no evidence that it did.
I'm sure we would both agree that Roman soldiers expected to be paid at least partly in coin, and it is the lack of coins that convinces me that no substantial re-occupation of Britain occurred in the period after Constantine's death in 411. The later issues of Honorius and those of the long reign of Valentinian III are not found here. The collapse of the British pottery industry at this time is also credibly explained by the lack of an army transport system to move it, and an army to buy it. So for your theory to work you have to explain the lack of coin and the total absence of 5th century inscriptions. I would really like to know what the evidence is that villas were still being repaired and built until 430 or that there were 'withdrawals to the continent, at various times, of armies'.
I don't doubt, of course, that 5th century Britain was managed by a Latin speaking aristocracy who, if asked, would have claimed to be Roman. The ancient historians don't ever state that there was a re-uniting of Britain with the empire. If true I should have expected this achievement to be more widely reported. Using Gildas as a source should only be undertaken with extreme caution; the poor chap was an evangelist not a commentator on current affairs. There is good archaeological evidence for 5th and 6th century trade from Brittany up the western coast of Britain, as far north as the Iona. The visits of St Germanus and the movements of Patrick suggest that cross channel traffic was also possible. The Notitia Dignitatum for Britain seems to have been kept 'on file' in case Britain was ever reoccupied. Many of the population might have welcomed the return of official Roman armies. But the evidence, as most scholars interpret it, suggests that the population were to be disappointed.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 24
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 6th April 2009
I have real problems with the historicality of Vortigern. Is this a title or a personal name? I note that in various legends he is the son in law of Magnus Maximus (suggesting a birth in the 360s) but marries the daughter of Hengist in the 420s. Is this possible?
Anyway if the 'main British leader' existed he would surely have considered himself as an emperor. If he invited a Saxon war-band into Britain to help with its defence then he was following perfectly ordinary Roman practice in recruiting foederati. As has often been said the word used by Gildas to described the supplies given the Saxons is annona; a technical term applied to the foodstuffs and other supplies offered to Roman army units.
There are plenty of examples within the empire of discontented foederati turning against their former paymasters. If and when this happened in Britain then the 'main British leader' presumably discovered that he could not call on the military resources of a nation state. The testimony of Gildas suggests that regional war-lords had emerged, a situation presently quite familiar in Afghanistan.
I've followed up the website you have provided. In the two centuries following the end of Roman Britain the climate does indeed seem to have been wetter and colder. The identification of the 'yellow plague' as 'yellow fever' is pretty speculative, and the colder and wetter the climate was the less likely it was that Aedes aegypti ranged over the home counties. I can't accept a viral epidemic that selectively spared the Saxons, and I still haven't seen any evidence that this was the case. There are some who are actively seeking for some way of polishing off the British to allow for Anglo-Saxon expansion; selective vulnerability of the British to a plague is highly convenient for them.
I've also followed up the website on early British kings but is is very unclear how much is ancient archive and how much the lively imagination of the author! Risky things websites.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 25
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
Hi TheodericAur,
With reference to Vortigern, or Guorthigern as the Historia Brittonum states, here is my understanding of the man.
The Kentish Chronicle places his accession to power in 425AD. He is described as king or tyrant and as such held the power and thus the title of Emperor. There isn't really much information regarding the other people or circumstances that brought him to power, but it seems probable that he was one of numerous 'local' tyrants who managed to convince enough people that he was the 'best man for the job'.
Toward the end of Roman Britain the north of the country was the domain of the army. I believe there is a fair amount of archaeological evidence for the late Roman army in Britain, indeed a precise contemporary description survives, although the evidence is difficult to assess and interpret. The Notitia Dignitatum (List of Offices) is a detailed schedule of all senior civilian departments, and of the army units, throughout the Roman Empire. The Western lists were kept up to date until about 420AD although information regarding Britain is scant after about 410AD.
There were three distinct commands recorded in Britain. A small mobile field army consisting of three infantry and five or six cavalry units who were under a comes, or count. This had no fixed station. Two static frontier commands were also listed, the coastal garrisons of the Saxon shore from 'Southampton water to the wash' each under their own comes, and the army of the north, under its dux, or general, who were stationed at York.
Anyway I digress, back to Vortigern
The genealogists make him a notable of Gloucester, one of the four known Coloniae. He was amongst the wealthiest of the landed aristocracy. There are others like him; Ambrosius Aurelianus was a vir modestus, (gentleman) whose father had been Emperor before him. Vortigern seemed to excel amongst his peers and his authority lasted for a generation. As has been said before Vortigern was unlikely to have been his actual name, other known notables of early fifth century Britain all bore ordinary Roman names, even if they also had British ones. The original text of the genealogies may have 'Vortigern, that is Vitalinus' which may have been later misinterpreted as 'Vortigern, SON of Vitalinus'.
Vortigern appears to be a description, something like 'High King' but it does appear to only fit him, and there is no other description of any other person being called Vortigern. It seems likely that Vortigerns name was actually Vitalinus although his formal title is not known. If he was recognised as Emperor it might have been 'Imperator Caesar Augustus'. Some have said, after inviting the Saxons into the country, that he may have named Hengest as his Magister Militum or commander in chief, although I am not so sure.
I think it more than likely that Vortigern, real name or not, WAS a real person of some distinction and he had several sons, of which Vortimer, is perhaps the most famous. Vortimer is mentioned several times in various texts and is described as being the most successful defender of the country against the Saxon invaders. It is mentioned that due to the success of Vortimer the Saxons were pushed back to the island of Thanet, or Ruoihm, and remained there whilst awaiting the arrival of re-enforcements. Several battles in which he fought are recorded, although it is impossible to be sure of how many, if any, are 'real events'.
One final thing to mention is that Bede incorporated in his Ecclesiastical History almost the whole of the tradition told by Gildas, but added other information including the name of Vortigern, who Gildas had simply called superbus tyrannus. This does not simply imply that Bede 'made up' the name, Gildas spoke of many people without naming them directly and probably had his reasons for not wishing to name names.
Regards
DocFortune -
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
Hehe... usually men in such matters are curious about what they do not have around them often (e.g. Mediterannean and African men about blond women, Nothern Europeans about East Asian women, East Asian men about any "well-armed" women, hehehe... ok stupid over-generalisations just for a laugh - I am Mediterranean but was never particularly interested as aforementioned (prefer Middle-East). I was also wondering if really Celtic Britain had such lack of blond (though indeed blond from blond has differences, Mediterranean "blond" is actually dark brune for Scandinavians!).
By all means the above was not any argument! But in practice Vortigern, had he the need to fight off contesters, would indeed need any mercenaries coming from mainland and it seems Saxons had a fame as warriors. Not knowing the actual numbers of Saxon warriors he is said to have employed, I anyway do not expect Vortigern to had been in position to imagine that he had just invited the "end of romano-celtic Britain"! -
Message 27
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
Hi TP
Many thanks for the huge amount of information that you have provided.
There are many points that I agree with but need to mull over the implications and find out some supporting evidence (if I can)
I find the similarity to Afghanistan highly interesting and surprisingly relevant to the whole scenario of the occupation of Britain by the Romans as well as the reference to the German rebellion.
Many Thanks
Kind Regrads - TA -
Message 28
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
Hi DocFortune
Many thanks for the information that has given me a lot to consider.
I do have concerns about the lack of coinage and pottery which the army should have used post AD410 although I understand that there were some examples of aes coins imported up until AD435.
As for Vortigern I am reviweing all the excellent information.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 29
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 9th April 2009
On the epidemic touching more Celtics than Germanics, I mentioned that this was a theory proposed quite recently. I was not also fully convinced, but really found it interesting. On the one hand Britain and mainland Europe was not Europe and Americas to have two substantially differentiated populations to create modifications of viruses killing more the one group than the other. But then it is known that even in very cosmopolitan places, different tribes have statistically observable differences in immunity. Then if Britons were more cultured than Saxons and had a more "clean-neat" way of life (well...!), their immunity system would be slightly fallen. Also, more importantly Saxons could have brought the virus along with them, thus themselves already having suffered from it prior to their invasion, thus being the "immune ones" (who knows? maybe that was the root cause or direct result of their displacement). The questions is whethere there exist valid arguments. I had seen that in a documentary some 2 years ago on 5th century Britain and the myth of Arthur, but do not remember what points that archaiological team had (themselves also propoosing, not affirming).
It is not an absurd theory. I had just read (did not even know it!) that in 1850 when the British-French armies invaded the little Greek state in Athens to prevent any support to the rebelled Greeks in Macedonia and Epirus that wanted union with Greece (ha! obviously no Macedonian nationality back then!) and stayed there for some 2 years (did not know also that!). Well they had brought a pest-virus from which they did not suffer that much but from which the local population had a 15% fatality rate (quite important). And we are talking about not any isolated place and not in any distant past.
Hence, the theory about Saxons being more resistent than Britons/Romano-celtics is not absurd. Neither verified of course. -
Message 30
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Thursday, 9th April 2009
Hi E_Nikolaos_E
You ae of course correct. During the expansion of the British Empire the colonists often brought disease that ravaged populations as they had no immunity from the Europeans, an example being the Melanisians, who were more than decimated by measles.
Immunity to Yellow Fever can be gained after having had the disease leading to an eventual natural immunity.
There are 2 types of mosquito that can carry yellow fever:
Aedes Aegypti and
Aedes albopictus
The Yellow Fever virus lives in the eggs of the mosquito which can last for a year and therefore the Yellow Fever cycle contnues through cold spells.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 31
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 9th April 2009
Hi TA,
Clearly both you and Nik are correct in believing that infectious diseases can be devastating when they spread into totally non-immune population. Not only is the this true of lethal diseases like small pox and bubonic plague but milder infections, like measles, were equally deadly when unleashed on Native Americans and Pacific Islanders.
What you have to ask yourselves is whether this was conceivably the situation in Britain in the 5th & 6th centuries. The north German tribes and the Iron Age British ('Celts' if you must) had both been in contact with the Roman empire for centuries. Hence it's really hard to imagine differential susceptibility to common infections in the two groups. The 'Plague of Justinian', whatever infection it actually was, constituted something quite exceptional which was massively damaging throughout Europe. What you would expect is that both native British and Anglo-Saxons would show considerable, and roughly equal, susceptibility.
The 'differential susceptibility theory', if I may call it that, has an interesting history. Fifty years ago the orthodox view was that Anglo-Saxons landed on Britain's east coast and massacred all the Britons that wouldn't flee westwards. There is really no archaeological evidence for this and many scholars concluded that Gildas's account was applicable only on a local basis. You then had the problem of the Anglicisation of a large British population by an inevitably smaller Anglo-Saxon one. Mass extinction following 'differential susceptibility' was a way out of this paradox.
If you take the view, as I do, that the success of Anglo-Saxon migrations were mainly explicable in terms of elite replacement, and having a technology more appropriate to the times, then the need for a deus ex machina varnishes.
The Yellow Plague may have been Yellow Fever but retrospective diagnosis is fraught with difficulty. Most of the great historical plagues have been explained in terms of more than one 'modern' epidemic disease.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 32
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Thursday, 9th April 2009
Hi TP
As I said previously there is much that you say that I fully agree with and once you get into more detail about the removal of troops from Britain, the reasons that they were constructed into armies in Gaul and also the point that the leadership was not abandoning Britain you begin to feel that there would have been a standing army left and that the country was not denuded of troops.
So although Constantine III took an estimated 6,000 troops from Britain he expected to hold on to his empire in Britain, the troops guarding the Borders would have been in place but this as you say leaves a conundrum regarding the lack of new pottery and coinage.
I agree that the army would have wanted to have been paid but does the lack of new money indicate that it wasn鈥檛?
Also if as is likely and supported by your arguments the Roman way of life continued for some time in the general population, surely coinage would still have been used and would have been in circulation.
If the army was small could not basic taxation have kept the army in funds without taking on new coinage?
There does appear to be some reference to imported coinage up until AD435 (see attached web site) but I cannot vouch for the accuracy although it agrees with many of your conclusions.
Regarding more details of the army left, using your advice I tried to investigate the Notitia Dignitatum.
I came across this definition by 鈥 J. B.Bury.
Which states the following:
If we examine the distribution of the field forces, as given in VII, we find that it corresponds to the situation of the empire in the years 428 437.
The numbers are as follows:
Italy: 37 units of infantry, 7 units of cavalry. Total 30,000
Illyricum: 22 units of infantry. Total 16,000
Gaul: 47 units of infantry, 12 units of cavalry. Total 45,000
Spain: 16 units of infantry. Total 10,500
Tingitania: 4 units of infantry, 3 units of cavalry. Total 4,500
Africa: 12 units of infantry, 19 units of cavalry. Total 21,000
Britain: 3 units of infantry, 6 units of cavalry. Total 5,500
The Notitia of A.D. 428 represents Britain as still a diocese of the empire, under the civil government of the Vicarius, with its five provinces under two Consulars and three Praesides, and still defended by Roman troops.
1) limitanei under
(a) the count of the Saxon shore, in the south-east,
(b) the duke of the Britains, in the north
And
2) a field army under the count of the Britains.
The supposition is that in AD428 / AD429 that Britain is still thriving as a functional Roman Province.
This seems also to have some supporting evidence with regards to the visit by St Germanus at this time when Verulanium was supposed to be functioning well.
The end of the Roman Empire in Britain, according to these reports, comes in AD442.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 33
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 10th April 2009
Hi TA,
Thanks. Two of the factors that make discussing ancient history with you a rewarding experience is that you give your views clearly and simply, and you indicate the sources that have informed your opinions. Such a refreshing change.
On this occasion I have examined the two websites whose addresses you have provided. Let me observe at once that the two authors reach totally different conclusions about the chronology of late Roman Britain! Furthermore JB Bury's article was written in 1920, and we already know that his views were still accepted 20 years later as evidenced by Collingwood & Myres 'Roman Britain and the English Settlements', written just before the last war. The question is: can the survival of Imperial Roman Britain into the 440s still be taken seriously in the 21st century?
Firstly we had better discuss what was involved in 'being in the Roman Empire' during this period. This is important since we would probably agree that British society would be quite recognisably Roman between 410 - 440. The authorities would be Latin speaking and, officially at least, share the Imperial religion 鈥 Christianity. Orthodox ecclesiastics would have maintained their contacts with Church authorities in Gaul and Rome, although how many people were orthodox and how many Pelagian is debatable. I'm certain that the 'supreme British leader', whatever the extent of his actual power, would have been styled 'Emperor', and trading links would have been maintained with Gaul. He would have had an army of sorts, armed in the Roman fashion, and would also have employed foederati following the Roman model. It seems highly likely that among his advisers there would have been a 'British independence party' and an 'imperial loyalist party'. In Northern Britain several excavated Roman forts, like Binchester, Birdoswald and Piercebridge, show continuity of occupation into the 5th or 6th centuries; perhaps there was some local military continuity as well. Down in Ravenna I would guess that Honorius and his civil service still regarded Britain as an imperial province which would be reoccupied in the near, but indefinite, future.
Being outside the Empire meant that there would be no central tax paid. The Roman economic cycle involved precious metal coins being imported to pay the army and administration. These high value items could not be used in ordinary transactions and were 'changed' into copper alloy coinage (which was produced centrally but which could also be 'forged' if local supplies were inadequate). The Imperial agents required tax to be paid in precious metal so the copper alloy coins were changed back to gold at the end of the economic cycle. For the cycle to function you need massive numbers of low value coins, and it is exactly these that are missing after 402. A few coins in circulation which had intrinsic value, like the clipped silver silicquae of Arcadius, don't matter one way or the other I would suggest.
The other essential of being within the empire would be that the British units of the Roman Army would be under central control. Does the Notitia Dignitatum really indicate that this is the case? In the north of England more late Roman forts seem to be occupied on archaeological grounds than are listed in the Notitia. Famously the Yorkshire coastal forts and the western forts at Lancaster and Cardiff are omitted entirely, which is very strange since these late constructions would surely have be manned against the Picts and Irish in the 5th century. Taken globally I can't believe that this document describes the situation as it actually was in 420 say. Drawn up for Stilicho in the early 400s using, in some cases, 20 year old information, seems more likely. It is misleading, I would claim, to call it 'the Notitia of 428' as if it were a single document, written at a single time, for a single purpose. Still, we're lucky to have it at all.
You mentioned villas being repaired or rebuilt as late as 430 in any earlier post. I really doubt if there is evidence for this. There is not the slightest evidence that Roman villas were ever sacked or looted by anyone. The archaeology suggests that they were progressively abandoned in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, quite possibly as the slaves ran away or the skilled tradesmen necessary for their repair became unavailable. The actual fabric of Roman forts and villas was never destroyed, destroying mortared masonry is quite hard, but was built into the fabric of churches or castles in the early medieval period.
Britain a functional province in 428? Where's the coins, where's the inscriptions, where's the pots?
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 34
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Friday, 10th April 2009
Hi TP
(I have split this into two sections)
Many thanks for this information 鈥 it is more than fascinating.
As you say there is a huge amount of conflicting information and interpretation about this period 鈥 which is why of course it is so interesting today as it was a century ago 鈥 in fact the arguments of that time still seem fresh off the press.
It would seem that the Notitia Dignitatum is open to interpretation and I would agree with you that the archaeology does not marry up but I still find it difficult to think that the Roman society which was reliant on trade and coinage suddenly became a barter society. They must have traded outside Britain still so the common denominator must have been reliable money.
As you put it In Northern Britain several excavated Roman forts, like Binchester, Birdoswald and Piercebridge, show continuity of occupation into the 5th or 6th centuries so surely these soldiers would have been paid
Regarding the pottery surely people couldn鈥檛 have stopped using them or getting new ones 鈥 I find it hard to believe that a pot would have lasted 40 years 鈥 and the technology must have been there to create new ones even on a local scale.
The site about coinage that I referred you to does also mention the following:
鈥淎lthough the prime need for a coinage had disappeared with the Roman army, there must still have been a need for currency of some sort for a number of years. Probably the aes in circulation, which are often found very worn today, were sufficient for small transactions, and a few aes coins were still imported until at least AD435.鈥
To me this indicates that there was still some form of link with the Empire, which had been confirmed by Honorius after the overthrow of the Roman Polity loyal to Constantine III.
So I am afraid that I still remain to be convinced that the lack of coinage confirms that there wasn鈥檛 a thriving Anglo Roman society post AD410, unless someone can come up with a replacement solution.
Could it have been that the later coinage and pottery were 鈥渞obbed out鈥 by the insurgents?
With regards to the Justinian plague you must be correct. This was one of the Great Plagues but I also think that for plagues to be mentioned at all by Gildas means that there would have been a kernel of truth to it as were the references to famine.
The interesting point for me is that he is referring to the mid 5th century as opposed to the mid 6th century when the Yellow Plague is reported. (It may be that Gildas was actually inventing the plague and famine as a divine retribution but I think that this is unlikely but who knows?)
I also fully agree that Gildas was reporting the West of the Country so his reportage is skewed to that area.
This period around AD440 鈥 AD500 is really when there appears to be an explosion of activity in Britain and a great upheaval including the invites of the German foederati into Britain by Vortigern and the subsequent uprising of them against the Brythons.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 35
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Friday, 10th April 2009
Hi TP
I have a huge sympathy for your view of elite replacement by the Germans and having a technology more appropriate to the times.
Whilst I agree that the Germans did in fact replace the elite and that there wasn鈥檛 mass extinction of the Brythons I find it difficult to believe that their technology was unknown to the Brythons or indeed that far advanced from the Brythons.
So yes you are right in your assertion that I am looking for something more than the Shield Wall as the reason why the Germans were so successful.
Perhaps this is wishful thinking
(Of course this does in fact take the Germans 150 years to finally secure its conquest of the main parts of Britain excluding Wales and Scotland)
It seems to me that at around AD440 there was still a flourishing Anglo Roman society in parts of the country (whether this was based around the civitates or the villa is a moot point) who appeal to the Roman Military in Gaul to help them against the increasing insurgency of the Scots and Picts.
No help is forthcoming and the Germans are invited in and in conjunction with the Brythons defeat the Scots and Picts.
The Germans then rebel (possibly due to the famine), take land and ask their friends to join them to increase the general uprising as the Brythons were weakened (perhaps by the famine).
Vortimer rebels against his father and fights the Germans but loses. During the re-unification process the Germans butcher much of the Brython Nobility (allegedly)
Shortly after this (AD460ish) there is a mass emigration of some 12,000 Brython Aristocracy / Elite or City Dwellers to Armorica 鈥 although there appears to be a conflict as to whether this was an army led by Riothamus at the request of the Emperor Anthemius to fight against the Visigoths.
My point here is that to move 12,000 people across the Channel shows huge organisational skills and shows that there must have been a country that was still very 鈥渓inked up鈥. It would also seem to show that there was a political system outside that of Vortigern and Vortimer with its own leaders.
If this was the case this begs the following questions:
If this was an emigration of the Aristocracy was this the emptying of the cities (which really is stretching the occupation of these) and why choose this time to leave and move out of the country rather than retreat to the West unless the country itself was becoming untenable?
If this was an army of some 12,000 men why wasn鈥檛 it fighting the Germans?
In the following 3 decades we see the Germans advancing across the country but get stopped dead in their tracks at Mount Badon 鈥 so perhaps they weren鈥檛 the invincible warriors that we are led to believe if challenged head on.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 36
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 10th April 2009
Most certainly they were not the invincible warriors that many thought. And it took them 200 years to establish full control of the 1/2 of the island but not in Wales, Cornwal and Scotland.
I think we have to take into account that when the Roman administration left the place, while there were guys like Vortigern to claim being "kings", the island was mostly ruled by the tribal/reginal way (that had to be present and visible even under Roman administration). Britons were not necessarily one-only tribe! And these tribes were often at war (just like Greek tribes). And when such wars become bitter, there Saxons fit nicely.
I believe in the course of these wars, Britons against Britons and Britons against Saxons, the Saxons found gradually their way in. Certainly they knew how to fight but were not any levels above the Briton fighter (claims that the Roman army leaving, there was no army are not representing the reality - Romans used usually local providers for weaponry - and Britain produced metals, thus had smiths - and most people needed not much more than 1 year to train in war).
The only difference in technology that Saxons presented was building their houses with wood rather than stone. I do not know how that gave them a strategic advantage them in these wars (perhaps settling faster?).
Sorry to bring again paradigms from another region well known to me but in all that case take the comparison of Turkish Seljuks and Ottomans conquering the Byzantine Empire and how almost all of common beliefs are wrong:
Seljuks and Ottomans like Saxons enterred Minor Asia in relatively small numbers. Now, like Saxons they were famed as being "great warriors" and had inflicted a first blow at Matzikert. Like Saxons did in Britain they went on to occupy most of the Byzantine Empire. Well the reality is that Turkish Seljuks or Ottomans had never inflicted a single great-victory over Byzantines. Matzikert was a battle won quite easily (and despite the repeated treasons in their own camp) by Byzantines that rooted n first sight the Turkish cavalry and went on to capture the fortress of Matzikert!!! The catastrophic result came as due to treason the Emperor was left alone in battle in the hands of the Turkish and after the plotters failing to elect a new Emperor back in the capital thus giving the possibility to Seljuks to negotiate a hostage-Emperor (normally, he should be dethroned, thus not any part of any deal!). The reality is that the first Seljuks started enterring Minor Asia some 25 years after the as-if decisive battle!!! At the same time Seljuks were enterring and occupying territories Byzantines seemingly too tolerant of them were reaching their higest-ever revenues to the extend that nobody was in hurry to reoccupy Minor Asia and Emperors were organising campaigns to re-occupy, after 5 centuries!... Egypt!!! At the end it took Seljuks and Ottomans that replaced them, 500 painstaiking years to fully prevail over the ex-Byzantine lands and that they did so only after the Byzantine Empire had been shattered in pieces and completely looted and deserted by the Crusaders!!! By that time also Ottomans (as well earlier Seljuks) had merged to great extend with the local populations with most of their armies being muslimified ex-christians or even christians and above all their leadership being anything but Turkish (original Turks were mongolic people - the last Turk-looking chief was maybe Arlp-Arslan who led Seljuks in Matzikert - from then on they had intermarried with local aristocratic families of initially Persian and Arabic then Georgian and Greek ancestry) while they empowered a new Turkish aristocracy comprising of local muslimified people (Greeks for example were very welcomed!) that increasingly was replacing the initial tribal chiefs deemed too independent-minded. Depiste all that integration of numerically superior local populations to the extend of disappearing the tribes' anthropologic characteristics (i.e. turkomongolic) and of the acceptance of a muslim religion that while not enforcing, largely sell the language along, Ottomans maintained their Turkic language no matter the Persian and Arabic and whatever other additions.
So. I do not know if the above example of more recent times could give us some light into how "a few Saxon warriors" prevailed over a larger Briton population. I can see a lot of deduced things out of it - and there we need not anymore the "plague-crisis" or the "superior saxon warriors" hypotheses. -
Message 37
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Friday, 10th April 2009
Plague would not have been responsible for unrest, in fact most people died and rested hopefully in peace.
I just picked up the edition from Oxfam "Plague's progress" History of man and disease by Arno Karlen.
People were put in quarantine because they became aware that the movement of people brought the disease with them, but it was not until they discovered that rats were the main vector of the disease that real progress was made.
I just hope I don't catch anything from the second hand book while I'm reading it!
I took a book published in 1660 to my doctor's surgery recently, foolish man that he is,
(James Howell, Dodona's Grove)which passed happily through the great plague of London of 1665.
One of the purposes of monasticism in those days was isolation from disease passed round the populace at large. If you did not go near people you did not get disease.
It is not much different with cold and flu germs
today, I find, lucky to be mainly free of colds and flu for the first times in my life from not going in to public places at all any more, for two or three years. -
Message 38
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Friday, 10th April 2009
Hi Sir G芒r
You raise the point that in fact it is the avoidance of the plague that causes the unrest and people do indeed try escape the disease or keep plague victms away.
The Yellow Plague is mosquito based but only in city areas close to people (the mosquitos live no farther away than 300 metres from the settlements)- it does not occur in rural areas which may be one of the reasons why the Germans did not succumb to the plague as the hosts do not survive in the country
This particular plague is not passed from human to human by contact or air borne contamination but only by the mosquito.
It is shocking as you imply however to think how easily an airborne virus can pass from person to person reaching epedemic proportions swiftly - like bird flu - so you may well be wise to hermitate for a few years.
I of course envy your access to such ancient learning at first hand and hope the only contamination will be of the mind.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 39
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 10th April 2009
Hi TA,
I think that we might eventually reach a fair degree of consensus on this issue. For example I agree that there might have been, around AD440, a flourishing Anglo Roman society in parts of Britain. What I don't accept is that Britain was still incorporated into the empire and consequently paying taxes to the emperor.
In Northern Britain several excavated Roman forts, like Binchester, Birdoswald and Piercebridge, show continuity of occupation into the 5th or 6th centuries. But I view this phenomenon as indicating that the last troops left set up a local military district, not that the forts were re-occupied by the 'official' Roman Army. These military districts may have formed the nucleii for future kingdoms, or dwindled away to be the territories of Afghanistan-like war-lords.
The historians of the late Roman and post-Roman periods are constantly stressing attacks by Picts, Saxons and Irish. You would expect that 'Scotland' (I know that the term is an anachronism) would be full of late Roman artefacts looted from the south. (After all Anglo-Saxon artefacts in Scandinavia certainly confirm the historical accounts of Viking depredations.) Well there are plenty of Roman artefacts in 'Scotland' but, except at Traprain Law, they tend to be 1st or 2nd century, not 4th, fitting nicely with the military activities of Agricola and (sorry Genwithian) Severus. I can't explain this inconsistency except to say that historical accounts must constantly be assessed against other forms of evidence. If the enemies of Britain 'robbed out' the coins, pots and glassware, as you suggest, they did an extraordinary thorough job; and where did they take them?
The account in Gildas, it is nowhere else I believe, certainly suggests that the Britons appealed to the Roman Military in Gaul to help them against the increasing insurgency of the Saxons and Picts; I just wish that there was slightly more evidence of this insurgency.
What opportunity do you think the average Briton had to trade outside the island? It looks as if many villas were devoted to producing a single cash crop, wheat. There was only one customer for huge supplies of grain, the Roman army. Without the army the industry collapses. Subsistence farming may replace it but this will function without coinage. I would rather imagine that most pottery travelled to its military customers as an addition to vessels or carts carrying more vital commodities such as oil, wine or grain. Take away the military supply officers and the transport and this industry collapses too. There must have been enough pottery left in Britain for decades of ordinary domestic use. OK, I may trade my pig with someone in the village who makes ploughs but no coins are required; the lucky tin miners of Cornwall can go back to exchanging tin for wine as they did in the Iron Age. If you source says that 鈥渁 few aes coins were still imported until at least AD 435鈥 I think that it is probably mistaken. I'm no coin enthusiast but I must have seen coins or read reports representing thousands of individual finds; but never one post 402.
Its not difficult to manage a flourishing society without coins. The so called Iron Age coins seem to have constituted prestige gifts, rather than the means of transaction. The Saxon kings managed without coins until the 7th century, and even then their early gold issues must have represented fabulous wealth, not the means of buying a knife or a sheep.
You're going to need more persuasive arguments to convince me!
TP -
Message 40
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Saturday, 11th April 2009
Hi TP
I agree with you regarding that post AD410 Britain was no longer a Roman Province in the strict sense in that Tax was collected and sent to the Emperor.
As I understand some commentators belive that after AD409 there was a boom due to the reduction in Roman Taxation (but even then it went Bust).
I would also agree that there were troops left by Constantine III as border guards but I suspect that by the time that Constantine died that as you say the army in Britain probably set up as local regional forces.
From what can be gleaned from the texts is that the Villa Society had in fact reached its peak in the 3rd century. Did the Imperial estates actually provide most of the armies supplies past this point?
With the reduction in the army from AD383, AD 402 and then AD 406 there must have been a gradual loss of grain production for many years prior to AD410 and I therefore wonder on the impact of this to the society in general immediately after the last removal of troops.
In fact how large was the standing army after AD383?
I am still coming across sites that mention coinage being imported post AD410 as well as gold and silver coinage being used up to at least AD420 (again I cannot vouch for the web site contents)
I am surprised that you feel that there would be little trade with the rest of the Roman Empire post AD410 as trade had been part of the Brython lifestyle before the Roman conquest and coinage had been part of this culture for example with the Iceni from about 10BC as well as other Celtic tribes:
I agree with your earlier post that there was probably trade with at least Gaul and there does seem to be links with the continent and indeed Empire if Germanus was organised to meet people here and that some of the Brythons were in communications with the Empire. Obviously communications were open for quite some time.
I suspect that we both agree that there was a thriving Brython / Romano society in parts of the country up until AD440 鈥 it is just how it was structured that we differ at present although I am always open to be convinced.
This is however important to establish because the interpretations of the events that follow regarding Vortigern, Vortimer, the invited Germans and Riothomas and the Brython Aristocracy and Elite all hinge on this.
This is an are that I think belongs to another Thread after yours and DocFortunes comments.
There appears to be two societies - the Elite Romano Based Society and the average Brythons who work the land as they had done previously.
I would be interested in other people鈥檚 opinions regarding this.
For example were there two sets of leaders in the country for each of these societies?
We were making comparisons with the tribes in Afghanistan in earlier posts and it is my belief that Britain at this stage was an almost direct parallel with the way the Afghans treat foreign invasion.
There have been Imperial powers fighting in the country for hundreds of years, the British, the Russians, the Taliban, Al Quaeda, the Americans and yet underneath it the tribal warlords continue allying themselves to the most generous and staying in control of their own lands, poppy fields and peoples.
And when everyone has gone they will carry on much as they have for centuries past 鈥 just like the Brythons.
Kind Regards 鈥 TA -
Message 41
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 11th April 2009
Hi TA,
鈥渢rade had been part of the Brython lifestyle before the Roman conquest and coinage had been part of this culture for example with the Iceni from about 10BC as well as other Celtic tribes.鈥
Concentrating on one portion of your post may we put the profusion of websites on one side for the moment and think about what evidence there is for trade and how this can be interpreted? The same type of arguments can be applied to the Iron Age, Roman and post-Roman periods.
I don't dispute the existence of Iron Age coins, but I cannot see them as evidence of trade. These were extremely high value prestige items, not money as we would understand it. Now there is good archaeological evidence for Iron Age imports from Rome: wine amphorae, Samian pottery and prestige objects like bronzes or glassware. What did the British export in exchange? Well Strabo gives us a survey of British products: grain, cattle, gold, silver, iron, hides, slaves and hunting dogs (tin is an odd omission from this list). Any tin or precious metals the British could produce would always be of interest as, probably, would be slaves. The Iceni that you mention lived in Norfolk which has no metals. Bulk products like grain, cattle and leather might be of interest to those with the ships to move them if there were no nearer sources. These products don't enter the archaeological record.
Things don't change much in the Roman period. Lead is added to the list of metals, which are now being extracted more efficiently, and slaves are always in demand. The frequency and quality of Roman building meant that quarrying must have been extensive throughout the province but there would be no reason to export stone. Villa estates represent wealth concentrated in the hands of land owners. It is difficult to see what powered this wealth except for a system of cash crop production. Later Britain becomes famous for a kind of duffel coat, the byrrhus britannicus, which must be evidence for sheep and weaving. There is historical evidence that the emperor Julian constructed a fleet of ships to take grain to his soldiers in Germany.
In this period I'm prepared to accept that coinage represents something like money! There seems quite definitely to have been a small change money economy in the Mediterranean empire. This was not the case in Britain in the late Iron Age, nor in all probability was it true of peasants in Roman Britain. If you were a Roman quartermaster buying grain to feed an army unit you went to large land owners not peasant farmers. The landowners would then have to spend the money received on something. Was there a 鈥榯rickle down鈥 of money to the peasants? Maybe.
In the early post-Roman period there is total collapse of the economy. We know that factory pottery varnished and the villas were abandoned. Small value coins are no longer made and evidence for their continuance in circulation is really not impressive. I guess that the agricultural products villas produced would still have been of potential use to Roman armies operating in Gaul, but the practical problems of transporting grain and meat would be considerable without the resources of the Roman military on both sides of the channel (even if their were no Saxon channel pirates). I can't say for certain that export didn't happen, since any evidence would be eaten, but I know of no reason to suppose that it did. Britain's minerals had been fairly thoroughly exploited in the Roman period. I don't imagine that easily available deposits were all that common now and in the medieval period there is no tradition of Britain being famous as a primary producer of metals except perhaps for Cornish tin.
So, if you really believe there was significant trade with Gaul in the post-Roman period now is a good time to say what you think was traded and where it went. There were always hunting dogs I suppose?
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 42
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Sunday, 12th April 2009
Hi TP
As ever thanks for your clarifications and information.
Certainly a number of the Celtic Tribes in Britain used their own coinage before the Romans invaded and even after the Romans invaded (Boudicca Revolt).
I would agree that most of this coinage was of high worth and therefore was not used as 鈥渄ay to day鈥 currency but was used to fund larger projects or to buy loyalty 鈥 so it was a method of exchange.
As you have stated the Roman Empire however did use smaller coins for day to day use and I can see no reason why this was not the case in Britain 鈥 certainly in the cities 鈥 like you I don鈥檛 think that the peasant Brython was a part of this side of society.
So the use of coinage was known to the elite of the Brythons for centuries before the removal of the Army by Constantine III 鈥 so I see no reason that the use of coins as a means of exchange would suddenly come to an abrupt end because the Army left.
Your argument for the collapse of Brython Romano society seems to rely on the removal of the Army but surely most of the Army had already been removed in AD383, more of what was left in AD401 / 402 and the final effective troops in AD407 so the internal economy would have moved on by AD407 to compensate.
If the removal of the Army was to blame I would expect there to be a serious decline in AD390 or at the latest after Stilicho removed another large amount of troops 鈥 perhaps there was 鈥 but obviously it wasn鈥檛 as sudden as in AD410.
So what was the difference this time?
It is said that the Brythons were forced to defend themselves in AD408 against a Saxon incursion because there were so few Roman Troops and then they expelled the Roman Administration in AD409 which obviously stopped Tax Gathering (perhaps as a gesture against Constantine III) but this action also probably stopped all the necessary communication for Roman Trade with the continent.
As you have been indicating all along recorded Roman Trade with the continent stops as infrastructure was broken and there was no one to keep the records or in fact to keep trade routes open.
This however does not necessarily mean that the internal machinations of trade within Britain between cities collapsed. There were still millions of people to feed, there was still a monetary system, people still had to live so trade had to continue using the coinage which existed.
The Brythons appeal to Honorius in AD410 to send back some troops but he declines as he is sorting out upheaval elsewhere but as you say Britain is not written off and everyone fully expects that Britain will become a full blown Province again but obviously due to circumstances this doesn鈥檛 happen.
Trade with the Continent as you say probably fails at this time (although you would have thought that there would have been need for grain considering the loss of Spain) but either way I cannot prove or corroborate that there were exports from Britain 鈥 not even the hunting dogs - so I concede this point.
Over the next few years there is a general decline in Britain as there is a loss of Central or even Provincial Control.
Europe falls into relative chaos, although for many years general communications remain open (St Germanus and Patrick) and certain cities thrive like Verulanium, Wroxeter and Cirencester, possibly because over the centuries there were genuine "City Dwellers", some as descendants of veterans, as opposed to "Villa Dwellers" end "Country (tribal) Brythons".
Even given this scenario, the reason for the abandonment of the cities is still not clear and remains open to interpretation.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 43
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 12th April 2009
Hi TA,
Please don't be too nice about the clarity of information in my posts. The more generous you are with your compliments, the harder it is to explain my evident total failure to convince you!
I think that in this discussion we have to clearly distinguish between attested facts and reasonable speculations. I think also that some of the points you disagree with in my posts involve statements I haven't quite made. For example I haven't really said that Romano-British society collapsed when the army left. It was the Roman style coin-economy that collapsed, which is not the same. The changes in society were slower, predominantly affected the elites, and must have been quite evident while Britain was still part of the Empire.
I think I have to ask you again what evidence for the continuance of a Roman-style economy are you looking at? I base my conclusions on pots, amphorae and coins; this is inevitable because these items survive in the archaeological record. We shall never understand the movements of degradable exports like beer, bacon or cheese, unless a durable and specific container is identified (and this doesn't appear likely). Actually I think that the grain, beef and leather industries probably collapsed at the same time as pottery production, and for the same reason, but the evidence for this is harder to come by, unless you view the abandonment of villas as evidence of a drastic change in agricultural organisation (which actually I do).
Now it is quite evident that you see no reason why coin mediated transactions shouldn't have continued in the post-Roman period. But I must ask again what evidence do you have? Support for the opposing view is easy to find. Coins in Britain (and I believe the other north-west provinces) stop after 402. I don't mean slowly peter out over several decades; I mean stop suddenly. The copper coinage still in circulation is immediately valueless without gold and silver to back it, and it is the absence of precious metal coinage that is important. Without the possibility of exchange the copper Roman coinage has only a 'scrap' value, and no faintly sensible person would accept it. Barter is immediately substituted. Supposing Constantine III had retained his army in Britain indefinitely. The currency would still have collapsed unless he found some way of accessing central stocks of precious metal.
We don't know the numbers of troops that imperial vicissitudes moved to the Continent. In the case of Magnus Maximus and Constantine we have to remember that these were generals who considered themselves 'true' emperors and who were moving forces to another part of their empire. I doubt if they would have totally denuded their home province. In any case some of the loss experienced under Magnus Maximus in 383 would have been made good, in due course, by General Theodosius. But even if Constantine had left sketchily manned forts, training battalions, and veterans behind again the loss of the quartermaster's purchasing power would have proved disastrous to the economy in any case. It's not a numbers game.
I don't find the post-Roman internal trade between towns all that convincing either. Partly this is because the towns had been moribund for 50 years or more, and partly because I can't think what commodities Verulamium would have wanted to exchange with Wroxeter. Now, play fair, and tell me what items were traded and what your evidence is. Philip Barker's excavations at Wroxeter were masterly, but if you consider his results showed a thriving community it gives a whole new meaning to the word 'thrive'.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 44
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Monday, 13th April 2009
Hi TP
As you can see, from your arguments there are points that I am more than willing to concede where there is a logical conclusion.
I am also aware that the combined approach of documentary proof and archaeology is your forte but sometimes the archaeology is just not there and this is where I feel that taking the documentation and theorising (as Nordmann would say) is worth opening up to debate.
Well it appears that we agree on many points but the arguments in their own way are contradictary.
Firstly Troops:
There is no proof that the troops taken by Magnus Maximus were ever replaced but I agree they could have been.
Stilicho then comes along and takes more troops (AD401 /402) .
As you believe that the Notitia Dignitatum applies to information for Stilicho the troop disposition listed in Britain was some 5,500 troops but again this is wide open to interpretation.
If there is a reasonable sized army after Constantine III takes even more troops, how were the Brythons able to get rid of the Roman Administration and why were they forced into fighting the incursion of the Saxons in AD408?
So to me it seems that there was only a limited Roman army in AD408 and possibly had been for some years.
The Emperor knew of the Army in Britain 鈥 were they just abandoned with no pay or was there plenty of bullion to back up the system already in place in Britain?
If they weren鈥檛 paid what was their purpose and as you say they wouldn鈥檛 do it for no pay at all.
In fact according to your logic regarding both Maximus and Constantine III would they have not left an infrastructure behind them that could be self sufficient for at least some time.
Secondly Coins:
I have previously agreed that the Roman Trade with the Continent failed once the Roman Administration was overthrown because the Roman Trading Infrastructure was lost and as you say the whole of Northern Europe was in turmoil as were the mints in that area.
There were mints in Italy of course that were still producing coinage.
Looking at the Hoards of Roman coins, whilst the majority found so far have been prior to AD402 there have been gold and silver coins found more recently dated up to AD455.
Hoards:
Bishops Canning latest coin AD402
Butterfield Down latest coin AD405
Stanchester Hoard latest coin AD406
Patching Hoard latest coin AD455
From this it appears that there was 鈥渟upportive鈥 coinage or at the very least solid contact with the Empire. You could argue that it was bullion but equally well you could argue that it was in circulation.
Thirdly:
Why do I think that the Roman Way of Life within Britain continues within some of the cities post AD410?
Perhaps 鈥渢hrive鈥 is excessive in the city context but there is supporting documentation that the cities do continue until around AD430 and later although this may be patchy across the country.
(We have agreed that there was some sort of Romano / Brython society up till AD440)
As you are fully aware I cannot prove that there was movement of peoples between cities or any trade between them but this is not proof that there wasn鈥檛.
There was communication with the Empire however that is documented and supported by the visits of St Germanus and Patrick. For people to come and visit and to organise events shows that there was communication between cities and that the communications with the Empire were open at the highest levels.
It is perhaps an important point that the 鈥淕roans of the Britons鈥 was from the city populations.
I would put another question to you 鈥 if the cities die and the villa society dies, where all of a sudden do the Romano Brython elite go?
There is another way to look at this 鈥 perhaps the whole system was going to the dogs earlier than we think, that in fact the cities were in terminal decline that you make reference to from AD360 but the Villa Society also seems to decline at this time as well.
I still think that there is more than meets the eye at this fascinating time in history.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 45
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 14th April 2009
Hi TA,
I'm sorry that this thread has evidently become a two horse race. An interesting posting on Britain and the Saxons has appeared on the History hub however.
Since there are clear and obvious limits to the knowledge we have about this period it may be inevitable that we construct two or more 'narratives' to describe the ending of Roman Britain. It is necessary to make each narrative or interpretive model internally consistent, but they will differ greatly depending on the answers we make to questions that are, strictly speaking, unanswerable. This is true in the real world as well as the message-board: Neil Faulkner's name in linked to the 'early decline' theory of Roman towns and society, and Ken Dark's to the 'long survival' theory of the same Roman institutions.
I think we both agree that there are many uncertainties involved in determining who took what troops from Britain and when. Even this represents progress of a sort since at the beginning of this group of threads docfortune was trying to actually name some of the units withdrawn by Stilicho, or accompanying Constantine.
You clearly find the number of troops at various times to be important. I look at the issue in more economic terms. If the central Roman government was collecting tax and sending money to Britain to pay for troops or their facilities then Britain was part of the empire. When this stopped it wasn't. I think too that you have to distinguish between precious metal coins (which were always prized by Britons, Saxons, and even Vikings, as items of bullion) and base metal coins, which were valueless as soon as the Roman money-economy collapsed.
In the late 5th century many European frontier units of the Roman army were 'cut off' by barbarian incursions far to the rear. One day the pay-chests simply stopped arriving. There are stories of some units sending off messengers to find out why; on the whole they didn't return! Otherwise the units presumably continued to collect the annona miltarium as usual and provide some type of local defence. They would have no coinage so that any local industries that depended on payment would collapse. I am absolutely certain that no substantial 'bullion reserves' would be retained to pay the forces involved.
On several occasions you have mentioned 'the Britons getting rid of the Roman administration', but I don't see it like that at all. I believe that initially (in their terms) the Romans of Britain replaced an administration loyal to the emperor Honorius with a simpler group of administrators loyal to the emperor Constantine III. After Constantine's death there may well have been discussions over whether to elect another British Roman emperor or to effect a reconciliation with the central Roman government. Reconciliation would have only been possible if Honorius was physically able to appoint and pay new administrators, and install them with military support. I am convinced that this did not happen, but you take a different view.
The interpretation of coin hoards is always difficult and I think that at the very least it would be unwise to assume that their contents reflect the coins were currently circulating as money. Of the four hoards that you mention three contain as their 'latest' coins items dating from Constantine III's era. The Patching Hoard contains genuine post-Roman coins sure enough, like those of Valentinian III, but this unique finding is extraordinarily difficult to interpret.
Clearly their presence confirms the historical accounts (Germanus and Patrick) of cross channel traffic. The coins may have originated from further west where there is good archaeological evidence of trade with Brittany and then the Eastern empire. What they are not is evidence that Britain was re-occupied by Roman soldiers being paid in contemporary coinage. Incidentally the 'latest' coin in the Patching Hoard is a solidus of Marjorian from around 460. The presence of this coin is hard to explain whichever of our two interpretations is adopted!
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 46
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Tuesday, 14th April 2009
If the central Roman government was collecting tax and sending money to Britain to pay for troops or their facilities then Britain was part of the empire听
It might all have been done locally, with a little bit left over for the Romans.. in Rome. -
Message 47
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Thursday, 16th April 2009
Hi TP
I also would have like this thread to have been taken further and wider by others but to no avail!!
As you infer this is grasping for light in the dark but there have been some sparks to move the shadows and create more shading of different depth.
Obviously the coinage is an interesting point and indeed post AD402 there is a dearth of new coins (although not a complete absence) and if as you maintain the troops were not paid past this point I think that the army would have broken down into local units for the internal protection of the Britannia Provinces probably with their own leaders.
Perhaps this is the branch from where Vortigern sprang 鈥 he certainly seems to have had Roman military ideas regarding the importation of foederati and obviously had no fear that they would be a problem later.
There had to be some control as the cities weren鈥檛 sacked in any way 鈥 no burning 鈥 but farther than that not much else can be said as many cities were used as quarries by future generations
At this stage as you say Britannia had ceased to be a Roman Province in the strict sense of the word as had probably the West of Europe but there appears to be a community that is working.
Perhaps the Romano Brythons did, as you contend, go to a bartering society but there is no reason to say that this is definitely the case.
There was obviously a cohesion of cities and also communications with the Empire and also of great men such as Patrick and Germanus.
Surprisingly for a 鈥淒ark Age鈥 methods of communication were available and it appears that people could travel in safety.
The later coin in the Patching Hoard does throw a spanner in the works for the general understanding of some of the basic information and interpretation.
If the 鈥淕roans of the Britons鈥 is to be believed there was still communication between the cities and the Roman Empire up to around AD440.
The question of when the cities became empty is obviously a difficult question as you say but the point of this Thread originally was to try and understand if Climate Change had any effect and would support any of the writings that were available.
Gildas refers to famine and plague and although as you say he was not an historian and only had localised knowledge nevertheless there is support of a dip in temperatures and rise in precipitation around this time which certainly could have led to famine.
As for plague 鈥 who knows 鈥 but there is a referral to the Yellow Plague as we have seen and although only carried by a particular mosquito could have had an impact but again the evidence is only a vague reference.
One of the things that strikes me is that everyone refers to the cities as being abandoned but to me it feels like the cities have been evacuated.
People have just left and no one has re-occupied them. Cities like Silchester and Caistor become Ghost Towns and even with the immense communication network that the cities formed a central part of, no one built near the cities.
This feels like a people fleeing from a catastrophe and the descendants not wanting to return. Why or what could cause this?
If it was invaders why would they not use the cities? Why would they not burn the cities if they weren't going to use them?
It is like they were avoided 鈥渓ike the Plague鈥.
Why in AD460 was there a mass emigration of Romano Brythons to Armorica?
Still, these are interesting points to ponder over.
I noted the Thread regarding the Saxon Shore Forts 鈥 more excellent observations 鈥 I have recently seen an article that is claiming that the Romans built Wansdyke as many of the Roman Hoards are found along its length.
I have to say that after all this I still remain open minded and much of what you say has been a source of fresh thought and interest 鈥 so thanks for the stimulus 鈥 without the debate there would be no progress and no definition 鈥 which in parts has been achieved.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 48
Posted by kleines c (U11163346) on Sunday, 19th April 2009
Greetings from kleines c. If I may return to your original question directly, TheodericAur (Message 1):
"WAS CLIMATE CHANGE AND PLAGUE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNREST IN BRITAIN IN THE DARK AGES?"听
Climate change was certainly an important factor. The River Rhine froze over in 406 CE, for example, which meant that the winters must have been very cold, at least by modern standards. This obviously had an impact on the movements of people westwards into the Roman Empire from central Europe and the steppes of central Asia. The barbarian tribes could cross the Rhine frontier on foot.
If the climate cooled significantly, and traditional forms of agriculture were abandoned, for example, Roman vineyards in Britain, it seems likely that fishing at sea, for example, would have become a far more important source of nutrition. This may help explain many of the seaborne migrations which occurred to and from the British Isles from the near Continent, including Brittany.
The Yellow or Justinian Plague in the 540s may also have wiped out a third of the population of Europe, which would have caused huge unrest in Britain, TheodericAur. The precise causes and implications are matters of intense scholarly debate. Cheers (morning coffee)!
-
Message 49
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Sunday, 19th April 2009
It might all have been done locally, with a little bit left over for the Romans.. in Rome.
听
When barbarian foederati become the main stay of the western Roman Empire from the late 4th century on, Roman land owners were ordered to either give a third of their land or the revenue from said third to pay the barbarian troops.
This form of payment is recorded for Goth and Frankish troops etc, if this was also the form of payment for English foederati as Gildas implies it was, it would explain Anglo-Saxon settlements growing along side and separate to the Roman villas. -
Message 50
Posted by kleines c (U11163346) on Sunday, 19th April 2009
It is also interesting that Anglo-Saxon London (Lundenwic) was established in what is now The Strand (Beach) and Covent Garden to the west of the City, Haesten, leaving Roman London (Londinium) in ruins.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.