Ancient and Archaeology聽 permalink
Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Friday, 24th September 2010
Amongst a number of theories based on documentation and Archeology, an interesting slant was proposed yesterday evening by Dr Roger White at the Caerleon Lecture, that each of the provinces of the Diocese of Britannia continued to function based on the Roman Administration. As a holding exercise he believes that the individual provinces in concert decided to hire mercenaries for protection but from different areas.
So Britannia Prima hired Attacotti, Maxima and Flavia Caesariensis hired Angles, saxons and Germans and Britannia Secunda the Danes and Scandinavians. This is based on archaeological artefacts like buckles, brooches etc. Any opinions?
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 2
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 25th September 2010
Hi TA,
It would certainly be interesting to know exactly how individual provinces functioned even in the late Roman period, let alone in post-Imperial times. Has Dr White published his theory do you know? I'm afraid I haven't read his book on Britannia Prima as yet. But you may be the expert on this issue having heard the full lecture! I'm afraid I have only questions at the moment.
The concept of foederati being settled in Britain seems agreed. It is consistent with Roman practice and the limited historical texts at our disposal. Evidently dating this process is crucial. The continental adventures of Magnus Maximus and Constantine III would seem to be possible occasions on which something of the sort could have seemed necessary. Does Dr White's evidence allow the discrimination of events in, say, AD 410 from those in AD 420?
Identifying ethnic groups by their material culture always makes me slightly uneasy since artefacts can travel disconnected from people. The Attacotti seemed to have served in Roman army units according to the ND. If they were 'Irish', which is widely stated, their presence in Britannia Prima, and particularly modern Wales, is understandable. The employment of 'Saxons' in the south-east is reasonable but the dating problem is particularly acute here. The involvement of Britannia Secunda with 'Scandinavia' at this very early date seems the most contentious idea, but also the most interesting. Can you give any further information?
Even is all these links existed and functioned in the post-Imperial period do they really provide evidence that provinces of the 'Diocese of Britannia continued to function based on the Roman Administration'? Powerful warlords can recruit mercenary bands too!
Incidentally where does Dr White think Valentia was?
Kind regards,
TPLink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 3
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Saturday, 25th September 2010
Hi TP
I don鈥檛 believe that Dr White has published his theory as yet.
His main thrust from AD367 is the Barbarian Conspiracy and the attack of the Scotti, Picts and the Attacotti on the Wall, North West, North Wales and West Wales with the Attacotti attacking the latter and the Scotti attacking the North West and North Wales (perhaps with the Picts).
Theodosius repels the invaders and rebuilds the towns, forts etc. that had been ravaged by the invaders.
Using the ND Dr White goes on to surmise that North Wales and parts of the North West were in fact Valentia.
Dr White states that he does not believe that when the armies went to Gaul that the Romano British thought that the Diocese was being deserted and would have continued under the current Administration until the point where Honorius declares that the Romano British should look after their own affairs .
At this point he believes that the Governor or Vicar of the Diocese would have left but the next level of Administration in charge of the provinces stayed and that the Administration from each of the provinces worked in concert to govern. (Which I find an interesting concept in its own right). (Also 鈥 did the province of Valentia also have its own Administration?).
Some of the evidence is based on Ogham artefacts in West / Mid Wales, the South East on silver pin brooches (interestingly made by the Romano British not by the Saxons /Germans). I believe that the Britannia Secunda artefacts was based on belt buckles but do not rely on this it may have been on other metalwork.
Dr White does not put a definitive to date to the end of Roman Britain but believes that the state had to be 鈥渟hored up鈥 with mercenaries to keep at bay the barbarians and by using mercenaries from different areas.
For me the 鈥渒ey remark鈥 is the working in concert of the various provinces idea and there are areas like the declaration of Honorius that I am uncomfortable with but there are areas that point towards some form of continuity to the changes in Roman Britain post AD410.
My feeling is that the lecture was more of a 鈥渢aster鈥 than a full theory鈥︹.
So I am probably not the expert, merely a reporter鈥.
Best Wishes - TALink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 4
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 25th September 2010
Hi TA
Thanks for the additional information. Unfortunately there are so few reliable facts from late Roman Britain. Personally I find it impossible to believe in the Rescript of Honorius, or that the Barbarian Conspiracy could have been quite so devastating, although many would disagree with me.
Clearly in the early 5th century Britain would have had 4 (or 5) provincial governors appointed by central government. When Britain started appointing their own 'little emperors' what was their role? Those left in place when Constantine III left for Gaul presumably continued to perform their duties until Constantine died. If the Rescript of Honorius were genuine it may also have been issued around that time since it is 'intruded' into a passage describing the invasion of Italy by Alaric (AD 410).
We really don't know much Britain after this date. Were further local emperors elected? If Roman officials (of whatever grade) stayed in their posts who had their loyalties? Did they collect taxes? Could they have collected taxes without the Army at their backs, indeed did taxation have any meaning once the Roman coinage circulation was interrupted? We also need to ask what 'governing' actually consisted of in the absence of taxation. Perhaps it was desperate efforts to pay off the mercenaries.
Anyway food for thought. Thanks.
TPLink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 5
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 4th October 2010
Hi TA
I've still not read 'Britannia Prima' but I see that Roger White gave an account of his views in Current Archaeology 211 (2007). There are a number of issues I have with his theory. As as I can see he believes that:
When the Romans divided Britain up into 4 provinces in AD 286 they respected existing IA tribal boundaries. I have real problems with 200 years plus of tribal continuity, although clearly the authorities must have had some basis for their provincial boundaries, wherever they actually were.
The provincial division resulted in greater autonomy of the 4 provinces which, he believes, made it easier for them to follow separate trajectories when diocesan authority was removed in the early 5th century. I'm not sure how much diocesan authority was really exercised over the British provinces in the late 4th century, nor whether lower strata of Roman administration would have survived the political fault line of Constantine III's usurpation.
The various British provinces employed mercenaries or foederati because they were defenceless. But clearly this was also normal Roman practice when the provinces were very far from defenceless. As we have discussed many times we don't really know if a portion of the regular army was left in Britain, nor what military value a citizen militia might have had.
It does seem certain that certain classes of artefacts, such as Quoit brooches and Ogham inscribed stones, have a regional distribution within Britain. But I have reservations over linking an artefact with an ethnic group and even if such a link were genuine the presence of an artefact tells you nothing about the basis on which the ethnic group was here: migrants, traders, mercenaries, or even honoured guests. It is not unreasonable that, say, Irish visitors to 'Dark Age' Britain would be found in those regions nearest to Ireland. It doesn't indicate that they were invited there or, if they were invited, that the invitation was necessarily extended by a surviving post-Roman administrator. Finally none of the artefact classes Dr White mentions are at all common in Britannia Secunda so I don't know what the evidence is for Scandinavian contact.
I think that the artefact distribution coould be explained in other ways. For example the brooches and so forth were the property of 'European' soldiers serving in the official late Roman army and that, in the late Roman period, this army had evacuated Wales and northern Britain and was concentrated in the southeast. The ogham stones and Irish place names in Wales date from a period a century or two later when there was uncontrolled migration across the Irish sea.
Regards,
TPLink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 6
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 22nd October 2010
So why would the Romans, if they had Saxon or Germanic allies, also build the Saxon shore forts- designed to watch out for the tribes?
Link to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 7
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 22nd October 2010
Hi Man_U
Very tricky question. The term 'Saxon shore' only occurs in the Notitia Dignitatum which may in part date from after the end of Roman Britain. 'Shore fort' may be a more neutral term especially as Cardiff Castle seems to have started out its existence as one, and it is nowhere near the Saxons.
Are they in fact forts? Well they look very like medieval castles but they all (I think all) lack permanent stone built accommodation for troops. It is really odd that you would go to all that time and effort to build bastions and a massive curtain wall, but expect the garrison to live in tents or wooden structures.
They are so close to the sea that it is really hard to imagine that they didn't get involved with naval forces. But as defence against seaborne pirates, or local foederati, a larger number of smaller forts would seem to have been a better solution. Like the East Yorkshire watch towers.
TPLink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 8
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Friday, 22nd October 2010
Hi TP
There was an Ogham stone found at Silchester as well in the West of Wales and in Cornwall.
As you say, it is wise to be conservative about artefacts and much of what you say gives much food for thought.
Regarding the Ogham stones and the supposed influx of the Irish in Wales what timescales are you referring to please AD350 to AD450?
The fact that Cardiff is described as a Saxon Shore Fort is interesting especially as it is not in the ND but then if Wales is not in the ND this might explain it.
Unfortunately if that was the case this would put a further strain on Dr White's theory.
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 9
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Saturday, 23rd October 2010
Regarding the Saxon Shore Forts, they would appear to be built by Carausius who was in charge of the Classis Brittanica at this time so were they in fact defensive naval forts built against Saxon and Frankish pirates who were roaming the channel at this time and who Carausius was tasked with eliminating?
There appears to be a number of forts built on both sides of the Channel to deal with the threat. Considering there was a fort at Cardiff could it be possible that there were other forts along the South and West cost that have yet to be found?
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 24th October 2010
Hi TA
I don't think it can be quite so simple as that. Any explanatory model of the system must allow for the possibility that the Shore Fort system served different functions at different times, and even may have consisted of different combinations of forts at those times. An ideal model would also explain the forts at Lancaster and Cardiff.
I think it is quite possible that we don't have the full system today, although it's difficult to believe that anything as large as Shore Fort could remain undiscovered if it survived. As you know there are now no traces of the fort at Walton which has been destroyed by the sea quite recently, and Lympne is severely damaged. A vanished Roman site near Skegness has been suggested I believe. Since the east coast of England has been subject to erosion and, in the case of Pevensey shingle deposition, these absences are unsurprising. Whether geological processes in the south-west would allow for forts to have vanished into the sea I am not certain.
The puzzle about the shore forts is that they seem greatly over-engineered and strangely static to deal with light mobile sea raiders. From the ND the units stationed in them are infantry, not the cavalry you would expect to deal with landed pirates. Pevensey, Porchester, Richborough and Burgh Castle, the short forts I know best, are very impressive constructions today and certainly three were eventually the sites of Norman Castles. It is understandable that it has been suggested that they were employed by Carausius and Allectus as defences against other Romans (AD 286-296), in fact in the past I have suggested it myself. But does the dating evidence really permit this?
Caister, Brancaster, Reculver were certainly constructed earlier in the 3rd century and, along with Brough on Humber, Skegness?, South Shields and Cramond, might have supported the Severan action in Scotland.
Burgh, Richborough, Dover, Pevensey and Porchester are built to a very different style and are later in date. I believe that Carausian period coins have been found in all so that all were probably built, or reconstructed, in that decade long rebellion; Pevensey being the last. If they were intended as a defence against a Roman invasion army they failed totally.
Finally, after the provinces was reincorporated within the empire activity continued (on the basis of coin finds) within the Shore Forts for many decades. Reculver and Burgh may have been decommissioned but Richborough, Porchester, Dover and Pevensey continued to the end of Roman Britain and perhaps beyond. Some time ago Nordmann drew attention to a theory that the forts were dedicated to the transport of wealth, and this has a great deal to recommend it. But for the quickest and safest possible Channel crossings you would not need more than forts at Porchester, Dover and Richborough. Conceivably the Romans wished to protect eastern coastal traffic as well.
Best wishes,
TPLink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 11
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 24th October 2010
Hi TP
Thank you for your observations which are as usual informative.
Of course the ND refers to around AD395 鈥 AD420 so the disposition of troops perhaps reflects this as either the remnants post Constantine III or as a change to the structure and disposition of the Army into the comitatenses and limitanei.
If we look at the Carausian era and the increase of piracy in the Channel which was obviously a scourge at this time, a theory put forward by David Mason is that the forts were upgraded to act as a combination of militarily defended depots for goods and as a base for localised small fleets.
If piracy was that bad maybe the best way to transport goods would have been to do it by convoy which would mean that goods would need to be loaded at one time onto many ships and escorted. Therefore they would be loaded from a depot.
It is interesting that many of the Shore Forts overlook havens rather than being on the open shore, ideal anchorages. Small ships (Pictae) acting as lookouts or fighting ships have been suggested for the protection of the anchorages, rivers and coastal waters.
Your supposition that to lose (or not find) Shore Forts in the South West or in Wales would be nigh on impossible I have to agree with but I do find it strange that areas like Poole, Plymouth, Falmouth, Sea Mills, Milford Haven 鈥 the great natural harbours seem to have no or little fortification.
Regarding the Eastern forts could these not have been used to store grain for export to the Rhine?
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 12
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 25th October 2010
Hi TA
I have no problem with the final evolution of Roman Shore Fort system having a primarily an economic function. The fortifications, and a small number of infantry, would be sufficient to protect the goods securely. The east coast forts could indeed have been used to store grain for export to the Rhine although, as far as I know, we only have textual evidence for an export trade of this type during Julian's command of the Rhine legions. Archaeological evidence suggests that coin moved into Britain through Richborough fort.
As you say during the Carausian era we have a historical function for Shore Forts, pirate suppression, but the design of the system does not seem to be optimised with that function in mind. The forts seem too big, to lack facilities for cavalry, and to have bastions for the positioning of artillery which is a military arm unlikely to be of use against mobile naval forces. One possibility is that the forts were constructed to an official army design which took no account of their actual positioning or function. Another is that, in accordance with your initial suggestion, Carausius built or re-designed some of the forts with the aim of resisting attack by hostile Roman forces. If so the plan failed, but by the time it was put into operation Allectus was in charge, and he is known for his financial rather than his military skills.
The first incarnation of the system would have served to protect east coast traffic in general and to insure the safety of the massive movements of men and stores necessary to support the operations of Severus in Scotland.
If there are large potential harbours left unprotected in Wales and the west I think that we have to assume that no protection was required. I agree that this is a little odd. Military stores must have reached, say the legionary fortresses of Isca, and Deva by river but Cardiff and Caernarvon forts are late. Perhaps someone, with a better knowledge of Roman Wales than me, could explain this. Thanks for reminding us that 'pictae' were small ships. The name presumably derives from 'painted' as does that of the northern warrior tribes. I wonder if in ancient sources the two were ever confused? Did an attack by small boats become in translation an assault by the Picts?
Best wishes,
TPLink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 13
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Wednesday, 27th October 2010
Hi TP
My apologies for the slow reply I have been away for a couple of days鈥
Thanks for the extra information.
Your observation of cash being moved through Richborough is of course valid based on the evidence and had completely slipped my mind.
The points about the confusion between the 鈥減ictae鈥 and Picts is again a nice lateral thought.
You are right about the 鈥減ainted鈥 part 鈥 the sails and hulls of the ships were apparently painted blue and the sailor鈥檚 uniforms were also blue to merge in with the seascape.
Chester, Caerleon and Carmarthen all had some form of wharves and ports and apart from Cardiff and Caernarvon there are the river forts of Neath and Llwchwr but although there is a one at Pennal half way up the Welsh West coast near Aberdovey there are very little other known.
The navy continued right up to the end and considering the constant movement of troops to and from Gaul in the last 40 years or so of Roman occupation, the fleet must have been quite active and large but where did it land the troops 鈥揥allsend or Richborough or Dover?
Are you aware of Maximus revisiting Britannia the year after he went into Gaul due to disturbances?
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 14
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Thursday, 28th October 2010
Maybe it is of intrest to you that in 360 ad, while repelling Rhine-Germans, the roman Caesar Julian based in Trier Germany, mannaged to get shiploads of wheat from England from mercent ships manned by Saxons who may have been non-combattants or axilliaries.( in the Roman army, continuing that tradition when in 450 ad their kinfolks came to claim new lands
This was told me by another thread-poster
Emp/Caesar Julian seems to have been a very cunning strategist who not only saved Noth Germany from gotic barbarism but died in an attempt to conquer Sassanid Persia( dd 361 bc.)Link to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 15
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Thursday, 28th October 2010
Sorry I am not too familiar with british/Roman emperors
only that Maximus went as Augustus" Divus" while Constantine-1 as follow-up runner for that post was overlooked and had to content with the lower title of Caesar( with rival Licinus whom he killed )after becoming Augustus at last Constantine-1 also killed Maxentius, Maximinus son. in 312 ad at Pont Milvius. and even his own wife Faustina and a son.
in 313 ad Christianity became the -only- state religion with Constantine-1 as it's Dominus et Deus.
A strange idea that the famous founder of Christianity was a triplet or even mass murderer!Link to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 16
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Thursday, 28th October 2010
I wonder if the change from Roman to christian religion ( by decree in 313 ad but in effect maybe 320 ad.)had any good or bad effect on the remote roman -british( or saxon)administration isles ?!
Link to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 17
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 28th October 2010
Hi Prof Muster
Welcome back, but do you think it is wise to post on all the thread simultaneously? Might it not be better to keep to one or two, and perhaps avoid mention of Dr Velikovsky, or the Julius Caesar - Jesus hypothesis until you are prepared to advance some real evidence, and respond to questions, on these highly implausible theories?
In this Roman Britain thread you have made a few mistakes which I should like to correct.
It is certainly of interest to us that the emperor Julian fed his Rhine army with British wheat. You will see that TA mentions this in his message 11, as I do in my message 12. But, as I have tried to explain to you before, although the movement of wheat is mentioned in several sources, none of the sources mention that the Saxon crews were employed on the merchant ships. I have asked you before to give a reference for this belief, but you never reply.
Maxentius was the son of the Western Roman Emperor Maximian, not Maximus or Maximinus.
It is not true that Christianity became the only Roman state religion in AD 313. In that year Constantine and Licinius (not Lucinis) jointly proclaimed an edict of toleration for Christian and non-Christian alike. Over the next decade Constantine promoted Christianity and Licinius took the opposite course of action.
With Licinius's death in AD 324 the success of Christianity was made much more likely, but it still wasn't the only Roman state religion. Whatever the imperfections you find in the character of Constantine the Great he was in no sense the founder of Christianity. Paganism in the Roman empire was outlawed in favour of Catholic Christianity as late as AD 380 by Theodosius.
The evidence for Christian practice in the remote provinces of Britain at this time is actually fairly slight and I doubt if it was the majority faith in Britain until the post-Imperial period. Saxon Christianity in Britain is no earlier that the very end of the 6th century but it resulted in the most amazing flowering of scholarship and art.
TPLink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 18
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 31st October 2010
Hi TP
I went to Caerwent the other day and was surprised to see that towers had been added to the walls (apparently around the time that Cardiff Fort was upgraded).
Do you think that this could have been a Shore Fort too?
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 19
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 31st October 2010
Hi TA
It has been several years since I was in Caerwent but the walls are magnificent. Are they towers in fact (in the sense of being hollow) or solid bastions for artillery?
The extensive buildings within the perimeter wall would have been unusual for a Shore Fort and the whole site looks like a walled town, albeit a small one. The siting of a Short Fort must have enabled, I imagine, collaboration with a naval force. My knowledge of South Wales geography is pitiful but surely Caerwent is too far from the coast for this to have been practical?
TPLink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
-
Message 20
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 31st October 2010
Hi TP
I think from what people were saying at the conference about the towers, that you are correct and that they were used for Ballista.
Cardiff was a late Shore Fort and I was wondering if the changes to Caerwent showed that attacks were becoming more and more frequent and that the miltary presence was being moved around the coast at this later period?
You are right that Caerwent is not right on top of the coast but it is only 2.5 miles away so perhaps it needed to be defended from pirate raids.
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Was Sub Roman Britain Supported by foederati from different areas?
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 聽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.