The End Of Roman Britain

[Hadrian]

When I wrote my thesis about the end of the towns in Roman Britain I had some HUGE problems defining the causes which led to the end of Roman Britain. Maybe we could accumulate all causes to get a complete vision on the end of the 'separatist province'.

What sources should we use? Just archaeological, or also (mostly unreliable) written sources as Gildas, Zosimus or Bede? How should we judge the Anglo-Saxon 'invasion' (yeah... invasion, not my words... just recalling Ammianus Marcellinus...)? And what about the Germanic mercenaries?

A lot of questions for a difficult (and probably insoluble) problem...

[Primus Pilus]

Interesting question... but can we get a clarification before we delve too deeply. Are we talking about the end of the province in a political sense (ie the final withdrawal of the legions, etc.) or are we truly discussing this from a social perspective (the final collapse of Roman social order, law etc.)?

 

By thw way, Welcome to the forum Hadrian

[Hadrian]

Well, I'm especially talking about the social perspective, because the end of the province in a political sense is not really an issue (although there are some doubts about the Rescript of Honorius). I'm talking about the fluid process which brought the Romanitas in Britannia to an end. I want to know why Britannia lost her Romanness and not why the island lost her legions, because that process had already started in the reign of Domitian.

 

And by the way, I'm glad to join the club!

[Primus Pilus]

To me it seems less daunting than may be suggested, but only at first glance I suppose. We know that after the withdrawal of the Roman legionary presence, the political presence followed shortly thereafter. It may have lasted another generation or so (in recognizable form) but as I think about it further is the difference between military and social collapse truly that noticeable? Anyway, allow me a brief overview to set the stage...

 

In very simple terms we know that after the Roman military withdrawal, northern britain was challenged by Picts and later by Hibernian Celts, the eastern shore (and the heart of the Roman population) was mostly overrun by Germanic invaders (which because of the culture shock may have quickly eliminated the Roman mindset in the area), and the west (such as Wales) which was never as intrenched in Roman tradition anyway, reverted back to a more Celtic cultural identity.

 

So what we are talking about is that 50 or so year generational period in the mid to late 5th century when this transition took place. We know the obvious things, ie the abandoned ruling class of Britain adapted to survive, the conquering invaders displaced elements of the previous regimes, etc., but I've always felt that religion played a vital role in the uniqueness of Britain. Unlike much of the rest of the western empire, which adopted Christianity fairly readily, did not the Britains hold out far longer? Certainly the Catholic Church had an important and lasting influence, but perhaps because of the isolation of Britain, the inhabitants felt a detachment from all things mainland 'Roman? Perhaps the arrival of Pagan Germanics, while initially feared and despised was eventually welcomed as a 'back to basics' cultural response. Unfortunately, this rather weak theory does't account for the continued spread of Christianity in Britain, though it could explain a gap in contact that seems to have occured between the church in Rome and their priests in the islands during this volatile time period.

 

Still we know that many Roman towns were darn near completely abandoned as the Germanic cultures spread and assimilated. Did the Roman aristocracy truly flee? I have always refused to believe that, but why would so many towns simply cease to exist rather than be taken over by the 'invaders'. I also don't understand why areas where archaeology seems to indicated cross cultural cooperation (Lincoln, Wessex, etc.) that the culture and language still became highly Germanic.

 

I suppose I'm just rambling here, but its an attempt at a start to the discussion.

[Hadrian]

I think the end of Roman Britain as a very dramatic episode, but not as dramatic as the sixth-century monk (Gildas) says and not as dramatic as you say ('was mostly overrun by Germanic invaders'). In the historiography there are probably five major camps. The short-chronology camp (which isn't really a short one) says that the decline started in de third century and was reduced to nothing in the early fifth century (409/410). What I can't believe is that the Romanness on the British Isles just ceased after 365 years of Roman occupation! (or a generation, maybe two, after 409/410). Why didn't the "Germanic invaders" see the benefits of the Roman culture (hearth vs. hypocaustum)?

On the other hand there are some historians/archaeologists who are saying that the Roman culture flourished in Late Antique Britain (especially Ken Dark), although this doesn't convince me at all... again... a difficult problem, because of the multilayer causes...

 

(I also think that Christianity is very important, because that religion became sort of an export-product of the British Isles in Late Antiquity, although there aren't much corresponding rooms (churches, etc.) known, from Britain in the 5th-6th centuries, in contrast with the Continent...')

[Primus Pilus]

Indeed, I didn't mean to suggest that the 'invasion' was some sort of cataclysmic one time massive event, but was instead a lengthy drawn out process of both abrupt change and lengthy assimiliation. However, the disappearance of Roman culture does appear to be, on the surface, as a cataclysmic event. Its just seemingly there one day and gone the next.

[Ursus]

Well, there was still a healthy Celtic legacy lurking in Britain beneath the Roman vaneer. The culture of the invading Germanic hordes was fairly close to the pre-Roman Celts, being rooted in similar tribal values and such. I suspect Celts wouldn't have had much trouble adapting to Germanic ways, aside from obvious language differences.

 

So you have people who are close cousins of the Celts who come and take over the most distant outpost of the Roman empire --- probably didn't take much to de-Romanize Britain. Heavily Romanized celts who had been living in Roman towns for generations and who had been part of the Roman imperial structure would find the transition shocking, but I think the rest of the population would probably be closer in worldview to the Anglo-Saxons than to the Romans.

[P.Clodius]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Romans employ Anglo-Saxon mercenaries? If so, the power vacum caused by Roman withdrawl would be filled by those with enough resolve. Also, don't the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles talk about invitations from the indigenous populations to fight the Picts in exchange for land? Its been a while since I glanced at the Chronicles so refresh my memory.

[Hadrian]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Romans employ Anglo-Saxon mercenaries? If so, the power vacum caused by Roman withdrawl would be filled by those with enough resolve. Also, don't the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles talk about invitations from the indigenous populations to fight the Picts in exchange for land? Its been a while since I glanced at the Chronicles so refresh my memory.

 

As far as I know the Romans didn't employ Anglo-Saxon mercenaries but Germanic ones (attested since the reign of Septimius Severus in Britain). Those Germanic mercenaries where invited by the locals after 409/410; but there are only 30 or so burials known from possible romanised Germanic mercenaries, so the evidence isn't very convincing (Gildas, De excidio Britanniae 23.5).

[Ursus]

What exactly is the difference between Anglo-Saxon and Germanic in this context? I thought "Germanic" was an umbrella term that included a lot of different tribal groups like Angels and Saxons?

 

According to the semi-legendary "histories" the High King Vortigern gave land to several Germanic lands in exchange for fighting against the barbarian groups to the North. But the Germanic hordes decided they would sooner be masters of Britain than its servants.

 

Of course as Hadrian said, legend and archaeology don't always agree.