THE GROANS OF THE BRIToNs IOWARD THE BRITISH CivirArEs PERIOD, CIRCA 406-455 C.E. I<CVIO IVlfmn1C)’ IsI;allnorfcillow t1icvuitings c idivcoclsoJinyou’n cotnitiv, vhich (ifrhcrccvcrw’crccur’of thcni) hctvc Iccii consumcd by thcrircs ofthe encmv, orhvc cconijicuucd my cxilcd coun— ttvmcn into distant kmds..i Since the time of Gilcias, the first great chronicler of the British, the problem of reliable sources, or any sources, has been lamented. Over the centuries, myth, pseudo-history, and educated guesswork have rushed in to fill the void.2 The last thirty years have seen a revival of interest in the fifth and sixth centuries, and a great deal of work has been clone on the historical and archaeological records. Ironically, the increased focus on the period has cast a doubt on almost every important assumption that has been macic about early Britain. Ian Wood has noted that between the usurpation of Constantine III in 407 and the death of the Roman consul Aetius in 455 there are a handful of dateable events associated with the British Isles.3 Yet even these are the subject of intense debate. Primary narrative sources, especially the chronicles, have come under fire. Many have been abandoned altogether, especially by archaeologists and histori ans favoring an archaeological approach to the period. With more questions than answers, historians are presented with tnatiy challenges, not the least of which is ‘hat to call this period and over what period of time that identification might be valid. “The End of Roman Britain,” “Post Roman Britain,” “Dark Age Britain,” and “Arthur’s Britain” have been used in the past. From archaeology we have “sub-Roman Brit ain.” All ofthe above are to some degree unsatisfactory. Since the abandonment of the island 65 GROA5 OF lilt BRITONS by the legions of Magnus Maximus (388), Stilicho (ca. 402), and lastly Constantine (407), a society began to form there that was clearly not Roman. The singularity of the British historical circumstance led to a society that was unique when compared to the Late Roman provinces on the continent. The question of periodization is equally problematic. Traditionally, historians have focused on the years 400600, approximately the time from the departure of the legions to the Augustinian mission.4 While this approach has advantages in that it covers the period from Roman Britain to Christian-era England, it paints with too broad a brush. I will argue that the period from 406 to the mid-450s presents a unique period in British history, one in which the independent civitatcs of the island established a government independent from the Roman Empire. Their revolt in 409 was unparalleled in the West.5 Independence did not mean, however, that affairs in Britain were separate from those on the continent. In 429, the Church became involved in the Pelagian heresy on the island. This coincided with the mili tary affairs of the Roman general Aetius in Armorica, the G allic provi nec across the channel from Britain. In the late 440s the Britons pleaded to this same Aetius for Roman help in their fight against barbarian incursions, and by the time of his death, the last chance for Roman involvement disappeared. The independent British government of 409, succumbing to a variety of internal and external pressures, transformed into an island of petty kingdoms ruled by Gilcias’s famous tyrants, marking the end of the civitates pmod. This paper will look at some of the political, economic, religious, and military aspects of this historical process. “No Longer Obeying the Romans’ Laws” The history of the independent Brittonic kingdoms begins in the late fourth century. In 3$3 the Roman usurper Xlagnus Maximus left Britain, according to Gildas, “depriveclof all her soldiery and armed bands, of her cruel governors and of the flower of her youth, who went with Maximus, but never again returned.” \Vhile Gilcias’s account of the extent of the Roman departure has been called into question, there is no doubt that Maximus’s usurpa tion had weakened the defenses of the island.S The increased Pictish activity in this period, described by Gildas9 and supported by other e’idencc, is a symptom of the weakened state of the Roman military situation. Curiously, Niaximus’s death in 388 did not end his involve ment in British history. By the ninth century, Maximus’s name appears at the head of several Brittonic royal genealogies. According to David Dumville, “He appears both as the last Ro man emperor in Britain and as the tirst ruler of an independent Britain, from w’hom all legitimate power Flowed—a pleasing irony, in view of his actual history as a usurper.” A further weakening of the Roman defenses in Britain occurred at the end of the century. The first of the Pictish wars reported by Gilcias continued nitiltos an iios until 389- 90. In 39$ the Vandal general Stilicho, answering a call for help from the Britons, fought a campaign 66 Kcvin \fumnicy against the Picts. Tn 401, however, he was forced to return to Italy in response to the threat posed by Alaric.’2 His departure with the legions marks a turning point—at least some of the islanc1, such as the area around Chester, would never again experience Roman military pres ence. The revolt that began in 406 hastened the end of Roman Britain and ushered in the cn’iwrcs period. The previous thirty-five years haciplaceci a great deal of stress on the Roman military and political structure on the island. Thompson has noted that “we know more about the years 406-410 than we know about any other quinquennium of Romano-British ‘ history, apart from the periods that Tacitus describes for us.” In 406 the soldiers in Britain revolted, raising a certain Marcus to the purple. VVe don’t know why the legions were com pelled to rebel or why they chose Marcus. The increase in Irish raiding activity in the south in 405 (attributed to Niall of the Nine Hostages) may have contributed to the unease of the depleted garrison.11 Lack of pay—there had been no imperial issue sent to the island since 402—is another likely cause of discontent.15 The bleak prospect of being stationed in the periphery during a time of crisis in the center of the empire likely compelled the soldiers to look for a leader who would take them back to the continent. The events on the continent at the end of 406 provided a clear motive for the British revolt. On December 31, a force of Alans, Vandals, and Suevis crossed the frozen Rhine, overw’helming the imperial and federate forces and making their way unimpeded into Gaul.’6 In the early months of 407, the British soldiers killed Marcus and appointed Gratian as their leader. He is described by Orosius as mimiccps, some sort of civic official, perhaps a town councilor and member of the aristocracy.’7 \Vhile his reign lasted only four months and ended with his assassination, the presence of a civic official as military commander is the first evidence we have indicating that a representative of the civitcltes assumed a role previously filled by an imperial official. The reason for his murder is unknown, but it is probable that his reluctance to take troops across the channel led to his demise.”1 In early 407, the Germanic peoples were wreaking havoc in Gaul, and pressure contin ued to mount on the island. Zosimus mentions that “[The barbarians] became formidable even to the armies in Britain, which, being afraid they might march against them, they drove to the point of choosing tyrants, the aforesaid Marcus and Gratianus and thereafter Constantinus [Constantine].”9 Constantine is reported to have won the throne by virtue of his fortunate name (lie would later add the imperial name Flavius), but it seems more likely that the army was eager to replace the town eouncilor with a soldier.2’1 By mid 407 more detailed accounts concerning the barbarians, and probably a good many rumors, would have reached the island. As early as May 407, Constantine crossed the channel with a field army estimated at 6,000, leaving only inferior frontier troops in Britain.2’ The last Roman usurper in Britain had gone, and lie had taken the army with him. While the details of Constantine’s continental ach’entures are outside the scope of this paper, his fortunes were in decline by 409, rendering him powerless to provide for the de 67 GROANS OF THE BRITONS fense of the western provinces.22 When Gerontius, the British lieutenant whom he had left in control of Spain, revolted in 408, the Britons were left to fend for themselves. Zosimus writes of this in one of the most famous passages in early British history: Gerontius was incensed and, winning over the troops there (in Spain) caused the barbarians in Gaul to rise against Constantine. Since Constantine did not hold out against these (the greater part of his strength being in Spain), the barbarians from beyond the Rhine overran everything at will and reduced the inhabitants of the British Island and some of the peoples in Gaul to the necessity of rebelling from the Roman Empire and of living by themselves, no longer obeying the Romans’ laws. The Britons, therefore, taking up arms and fighting on their own behalf, freed the cities from the barbarians who were pressing upon them; and the whole of Armorica and other provinces of Gaul, imitating the Britons, freed themselves in the same way, expelling the Roman officials and establishing a sovereign constitLition On their ow’n authority.