Â鶹Éç

Empire in turmoil

AD 410: the Empire is in turmoil; attacked from all sides, both internally and externally. Faced with invasion by a coalition of Picts and Saxons, the Roman citizens of Britain appeal to the Emperor for help; but Honorius is in no position to aid them. Rome has just been sacked, the Goths are ravaging Italy and the western half of his empire, where Britain lies, has been supporting a pretender. Honorius drafts them a reply telling them that they must 'look to their own defences'. With these words, Rome's official ties with Britain are lost.

With the withdrawal of imperial authority, Roman Britain did not magically cease to exist. In fact, the emperor had lost control several years before. Britain had long been a bolt-hole for pretenders to the imperial purple, and in times of crisis it had a history of seceding from the empire and looking after its own affairs. This had happened again in AD 406, but the usurper, Constantine III, had become embroiled in Gaul and was trapped in Arles by another barbarian horde. In the wake of this failure, the citizens of Britain seem to have thrown out Constantine's officials and turned to the emperor for help - but he rejected them.

Saxon take-over

A Saxon boat  © Now Britain was on its own. The traditional story, told by both Saxon and British sources, is of a superbus tyrannus named Vortigern (which means 'High Chief' in Celtic), at the head of a council of British leaders. These leaders settled a group of Saxon mercenaries, led by Hengist and Horsa, in Kent, to protect their lands against Pictish raiders. The mercenaries then mutinied, and took over the lands they were supposed to protect.

The language used indicates that some semblance of Roman administration had survived into sub-Roman times and was falling back on the old late Roman practice of hiring barbarian mercenaries. When this happened is not clear. What is clear is that St Germanus of Auxerre was able to visit a recognisably Roman St Albans (Verulamium) to engage in ecclesiastical debate as late as AD 445. According to his biographer he led its inhabitants in defence of the town against a combined Saxon/Pictish raid.

This blood and thunder depiction of the coming of the Saxons could be a construct of our sources, which rely heavily on the oral tradition of Celtic and Saxon battle poems. Only one source, Gildas, was writing within a hundred years of the events described, and even he was trying to prove his own agenda, that the kings of Briton had lost their land to the Saxons through debauchery and godless living. It is as if we were trying to tell the story of the creation of Ireland with only Dr Paisley and Irish Republican folk-songs to rely on.

While the lords of the land fought for control, what was happening on a local level to the ordinary inhabitant of sub-Roman Britain? The archaeological record seems to tell a more peaceful tale. There is no indication of wholesale burning or murder with the coming of the Saxons. At certain rural sites, such as West Stow and Mucking, the evidence suggests that the Saxon settlers were allocated marginal land next to an existing Romano-British settlement. Who was in control here, the Romano-Britons or the Saxons?

Civic life

Roman coins found at Vindolanda  © What of the cities? There is no doubt that urban life declined in the decades following the withdrawal of Rome. This was because the cities had lost their central function as centres for taxation and administration, but it had been happening long before Honorius put pen to paper.

In the latter part of the fourth century, the urban aristocracy had been moving out of the towns, trying to avoid their civic responsibilities and no longer spending money on maintaining public buildings. Imperial coinage had stopped being sent to the province some time during the 370s, and without it the towns had lost their main raison d'etre. Commercial enterprises, such as the pottery industry, which relied on the towns to distribute its goods, ceased to exist except in very localised areas. As the infrastructure disappeared, the towns shrank. For all these reasons, Roman Britain was starting to slip away long before the Saxons invaded the land.

Yet in many of the towns, civic life continued into the fifth century. Conscious attempts to live a form of Roman life persisted around early Christian churches such as those at St Albans, Lincoln, and Cornhill in London. Elsewhere, the populations of some Roman towns, such as Wroxeter and York, re-used old civic buildings for a more domestic purpose. The old bathing complex at Wroxeter was now the site of a large, timber town house surrounded by shops in a late Roman style.

Forts and threats

Portchester Castle, the site of a third century Roman fort built to guard against Saxon raids.  © So how do these two traditions, the historical and archaeological, combine? There can be no doubt that the sub-Roman period was one of violent unrest. Hill-forts such as South Cadbury were re-occupied by Romano-British inhabitants, who strengthened their walls, presumably against some threat.

Though places like Canterbury show no evidence of destruction, they seem to have been abandoned a few years prior to their occupation by the Saxons. In other areas, it is so difficult to determine who is Saxon, and who is not, that it seems likely that the peasantry simply got on with their lives while the aristocracy fought over whose privilege it was to rule them.

This is where we turn to the historical record. The history of the period records the deeds and exploits of great men: often semi-mythological figures who represent a more general basic truth. The story of Vortigern and the Saxon rebellion may not be be accurate in its detail, but it still illustrates the way in which the rulers of the sub-Roman province first lost control to the Saxons.

Such stories are likely to have had a basis in reality, onto which was attached the mythological trappings of the end of an era. They tell of an attempt by sub-Roman authority to maintain some semblance of Roman order, and the internecine squabbles that ensued when that attempt broke down. This resulted in the Anglo-Saxons becoming overlords of the south-eastern half of Britain, whilst the general populace continued in its usual way.

But Britain was now no longer Roman. The Roman era had ended and the Anglo-Saxon era had begun. The survivors of Roman Britain lamented that loss, and out of their mythology rose another figure to symbolise the passing of the age. That figure was Arthur, and his story lies in the new Anglo-Saxon age that was to come.

Find out more

Books

The Ending of Roman Britain by AS Esmonde-Cleary (Routledge, 2000)

Roman Britain by Peter Salway (Oxford Paperbacks, 2000)

Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire edited by Ray Laurence and Joanne Berry (Routledge, 2001)

Links

The site has extracts from Gildas's Concerning the Ruin of Britain, which describes the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain.

About the author

Dr Mike Ibeji is a Roman military historian who was an associate producer on Simon Schama's A History of Britain.