by Mike Ashley
In the Notitia, Valentia is grouped with Maxima Caesariensis, the southeastern province based around London, as being governed by a consul rather than a praesides. This could suggest either that Valentia had been created by dividing Maxima Caesariensis in two – though then giving both halves consular governors was perhaps a little top heavy – or that Maxima Caesariensis had been renamed Valentia. If that is the case, it means that one of the more senior provinces had somehow been wrested from Roman control, and the chances of this being in the south are remote. We do not know if this was related to the rebel Valentinus, or where he was located, though in all likelihood he would have been in one of the southern provinces. Ammianus states that “it had fallen into the hands of the enemy,” which probably means it had been taken over by the barbarian Picts. This would suggest it was a province in the north, the most obvious one being Britannia Secunda, based at York. It may well be, therefore, that Valentia was a province split from Britannia Secunda. As we have seen in the past, the most difficult area to control had been the western Pennines, and it has been suggested that Valentia could have been created in what is now Cumbria and which, in Arthurian times, was part of Rheged.
It is just possible that Valentia was the territory between the Walls, not strictly a “province” but a buffer zone, and was the easiest province to lose to the Picts.
The separate reference to Valentia in the Notitia Dignitatum rules out the suggestion that Valentia was the name given to the whole of the diocese of Britain, an interpretation that could be read into Ammianus’s text, and which would certainly have made sense. The fact that it was either a renamed fourth province or a new fifth province that was, albeit briefly, taken away from Roman control, makes identification important, because it shows the abilities of the Picts, perhaps in collaboration with any rebellious indigenous population. This becomes important when mapping out the Arthurian world in the next century.
Theodosius confirmed a number of new officers in various posts at this time. It’s possible that some of the people who were ancestors of the British kings may have been installed now, such as Paternus, the grandfather of Cunedda, as a commander of the Votadini. One other appointment is worth mentioning. A short while after these events, Valentinian transferred a Germanic king, Fraomar, to Britain as a military tribune in command of an existing contingent of Alamanni troops. It is not recorded where he was placed but it is a reminder that a high-ranking Germanic commander was in Britain in the fourth century, in charge of Germanic troops, and he may well not have been the only one.
Theodosius’s campaign and reforms were successful in improving British morale and restoring Roman command and also, as a consequence, improving the quality of life in Britain. Archaeological evidence, especially in the south, has identified plenty of places where high quality villas were extended or rebuilt at this time. Theodosius did not, however, stop continued attempts by the Picts to undermine control in the north. This was especially so after the death of Valentinian in 375. He was succeeded by his two sons, Valentinian II, who was only four, and Gratian, who was sixteen. Though Gratian grew into a passable soldier, he was no good at government and soon lost the confidence of the army. Once again the time was right for another usurper.
This came in the shape of Magnus Maximus, the “greatest of the great.” He was of Spanish descent and had served in Britain with Theodosius in 367. He had remained with Theodosius, serving in Raetia from 370, against the Alamanni, and in Africa from 373, before returning to Britain in 380, possibly as dux Britanniarum. In 382 there was another incursion by Picts and Scots which Maximus repulsed, bringing him great acclaim. He was popular amongst the troops and knew how to use this to his advantage, especially in denigrating the work of Gratian. In 383 the ever-rebellious British soldiers declared Maximus their emperor.
Maximus took his army into Gaul and defeated Gratian after a protracted skirmish outside Paris. Gratian fled, but was murdered. Maximus knew better than to go after Valentinian, who was still only 13. An agreement was reached with Theodosius whereby Valentinian remained emperor in Italy, but Maximus controlled the western empire north of the Alps.
And so it remained until Maximus became too sure of himself. His fate was an early example of the Christian faith being used by rulers to further their own ends. Valentinian, heavily influenced by his mother, had passed an act legitimizing Arianism, a creed that held Jesus to be human and not divine. Maximus, who purported to be a devout Christian, and who had been the first to have a non-orthodox Christian bishop executed for heresy, used Valentinian’s act as a cause to invade Italy and confront the young emperor. He took with him a large army, including further troops from Britain. It was a foolish act. Maximus found himself trapped by the army of Theodosius, who had come to Valentinian’s aid, and he was killed. Maximus’s son, Flavius Victor, whom he had appointed as caesar and left behind in Gaul, was also killed.
Maximus was bad news for Britain. He could have been a good emperor, but his belief in his own self importance got the better of him and he drained many troops from Britain, seriously weakening its defences. These troops did not return. Many settled in Armorica (Brittany) and became the core of a British settlement.
Curiously, however, Maximus has entered British legend as something of a hero, and his march upon Rome has become subsumed into Arthurian myth, as we shall later see. To the Celts he was Macsen Wledig – wledig means “leader”. They claimed he was the grandson of Constantine the Great, through a daughter. This would fit into the chronology – Maximus was born about 330 – though there is much uncertainty about his father. It is also claimed that Maximus was married twice: firstly to Ceindrech ferch Rheiden, who claimed descent from Caswallon, and secondly to Elen, daughter of Eudaf. By his first wife he had two children – the unfortunate Victor, and Owain, who will feature again shortly. By his second wife he had five children, including Constantine, a name which becomes drawn into the Arthurian legend, and Severa, who became the wife of Vortigern, the future ruler of Britain. There is no reason to doubt that these children of Maximus existed. A tomb, which may be Constantine’s, has been found near Segontium (Caernarvon), a place strongly associated with Maximus. Future kings and usurpers all liked to claim descent from Maximus, especially as he himself claimed descent from Constantine the Great, but one has to treat these genealogies with caution. I shall discuss all of them in much detail later. All we need note at the moment is that despite having weakened Britain’s defences, Maximus was hailed a British hero and his life is a prelude to the story of Arthur.
Following the death of Maximus, Roman control over events in Britain was virtually lost. As Gildas later expressed it, “The island was still Roman in name, but not by law and custom.” Maximus’s son Victor was killed by a soldier called Arbogast, who set up his own puppet emperor, Eugenius, and sought to make himself king of France. Arbogast, a pagan, encouraged the return to pagan worship in Britain and Gaul. Theodosius’s two sons, Honorius and Arcadius, were both too young to rule so the Vandal general Stilicho governed the western empire as regent for Honorius. Stilicho prevailed and, after the deaths of Eugenius and Arbogast, sought once again to shore up defences in Britain. Around the years 395–396, Stilicho sent a force against the Picts, but it was too little too late. Soon after, in 401–402 Stilicho withdrew further troops from Britain to help fight against Alaric, the Visigoth governor of Illyria, who had invaded Italy.
Hadrian’s wall was now undefended and all troops had been withdrawn from Wales. Only one legion remained in Britain, at Chester. The Irish now secured a grip on the fringes of Britain. The chieftain Eochaid, ruler of the Déisi in present-day Waterford, established a base in south-west Wales, in the territory then known as Demetia (later Dyfed). Meanwhile the descendants of Cairbre Riata, founder of the territory of the Dál Riata in Northern Ireland, had established settlements in what are now Argyll and Kintyre.
No new Roman coinage entered Britain after 402. Feeling abandoned, and having lost all hope in any
further support from Rome, Britain once again chose its own emperors. The first two – Marcus, a Roman official, and Gratian, a British official – scarcely lasted a few months before both were murdered. This was between December 406 and May 407. The third choice was more promising, even though he was apparently an ordinary soldier from the ranks. This was Flavius Claudius Constantine, later Constantine III. Constantine marshalled what few troops remained in Britain and marched on Gaul, winning over the troops both there and on the Rhine. The latter desertion was a disaster for Rome, as the barbarian armies had already crossed the borders of the Empire and the defences were crumbling. Nevertheless Constantine proved a surprise. His presence seemed to deter the Vandals and other armies, and there was a brief respite in hostilities.
The problem for Britain, though, was that Constantine was now in Gaul. He seemed to have lost interest in Britain, and once again Britain became subject to increasing attacks from Picts and Saxons. By 408 Constantine had lost his grip on affairs, and the Vandals were again on the move. Britain had enough, and, in 409, expelled all Roman officials. The Greek historian Zosimus, who lived only a few years after these events, tells the story in his Historia Nova (c500).
The barbarians beyond the Rhine, attacking in force, reduced the inhabitants of Britain and some of the Celtic tribes to the point where they were obliged to throw off Roman rule and live independently, no longer subject to Roman laws. The Britons therefore took up arms and, braving the danger on their own behalf, freed their cities from the barbarians threatening them. And all Armorica and the other Gallic provinces followed their example, freed themselves in the same way, expelled their Roman rulers and set up their own governments as far as lay within their power.
But it proved difficult. There were continued attacks, and in 410 the British wrote to the emperor Honorius (son of Theodosius) pleading for help. Honorius, however, had enough to contend with, what with the barbarians overrunning the empire and Constantine III seeking to destroy him. According to Zosimus, he replied telling them to look to their own defence. A.L.F. Rivet and Colin Smith, in The Place-Names of Roman Britain, have suggested that Zosimus somehow mistook the town of Bruttium in southern Italy for Britannia – the names in Greek are very similar – which may mean that Honorius did not officially dismiss the British. However, the British had certainly dismissed the Romans, and Honorius was in no position to respond. Whether by design or default, and no matter how temporary it may have seemed at the time, Britain was no longer under direct Roman rule.
It now had to defend itself and needed strong men to do so. The Age of Arthur was about to begin.
3
THE DARKNESS DESCENDS
1. British Authority
I have dwelt for some time on the Roman background to the Arthurian age because it is important to understand the state of Britain at the start of the so-called “Dark Ages”. We have seen that the British had increasingly sought independence during the third and fourth centuries and, as troubles beset the rest of the Roman Empire, had grown wealthy and financially resilient. Though Germanic, Scottish and Pictish invaders continued to trouble the periphery of Britain, even in the late fourth century, the Romano-British lived in style, in grand villas with expensive goods imported from elsewhere in the Empire.
The years 409/410, with the apparent end of Roman control in Britain, were part of a process of independence that stretched for over a century. It should not be seen as Britain being abandoned by Rome, with the sudden desertion of the army leaving Britain at the mercy of the Saxons waiting to pounce. Britain had been steadily deprived of its forces at intervals over the last thirty years or more. The native British had been well trained and conditioned in Roman ways for nearly four centuries, and British officials would have ensured continuity with the training of their own troops. The British forces, which no doubt included Germanic mercenaries, may not have been as disciplined as the Roman legions, nor as numerous, but we cannot discount them.
Moreover, there were already plenty of Germanic settlers and retired soldiers in Britain. The Roman Empire was multicultural, allowing the free movement of people throughout Europe. Many of the soldiers stationed in Britain were not of strict Roman stock, but from Germanic and other tribes, as we have already seen with the Sarmatians at Bremetennacum. There were many Friesian cavalry units posted in Northern Britain, such as at Vinovia (Binchester) and Derventio (Papcastle). They even feature in the Arthurian legends.
The dismissal of the Roman administration was no doubt part of a power struggle in Britain, both secular and religious. The British appeal to Honorius had come from the heads of the civitates, not the provincial heads or the vicarius. Some historians believe this means that the British usurpation of power had come from the provincial governors who had overthrown the vicarius, leaving the civitates in a degree of confusion. With no overall diocesan control it meant that after 409 Britain was no longer one single diocese but four provinces, each with its own governor.
Throughout the Roman occupation, the tribal structure within Britain had led to continuous rivalry and conflict between the British. The Roman administration had stifled this to a degree, particularly in the south, but it was always there, and would have reasserted itself after the Romans left. In our own time we have seen a similar resurgance of tribalism in Eastern Europe following the fall of Communism.
To this must be added a conflict in religious views. The Christian faith was still evolving and various sects were emerging throughout the Roman world. At the dawn of the fifth century, the strongest voice of Christian understanding, and the one regarded as orthodox, was that of Augustine of Hippo. His interpretation of doctrine, including the concept of predestination (that mankind’s fate is controlled by God and that original sin is inherited) was upheld by Pope Innocent, the most powerful pope of the period. As a consequence, any opposing views were seen as heretical. One such came from the British monk Pelagius, who had studied law in Rome but turned to the Church around the year 386. Pelagius’s strong opinions apparently made ready enemies. He held the viewpoint that individuals had free will and could have a one-to-one relationship with God, not requiring the channel of a priest. Pelagius and Augustine were vehemently opposed, and it was Augustine whose doctrine held sway. Pelagius was first condemned by the Pope in 411, again in 416, and threatened with excommunication by Innocent in 417. Pelagius did not reform and, in 418, solely through the forcefulness of Augustine, was excommunicated. Pelagius died soon afterwards, in 419, but his views lived on, especially in Britain, where they seem to have found favour with the aristocracy.
So, not only were there pro-Roman and pro-British views of governance, there was also a pro-Catholic/pro-Pelagian divide in Britain. Effectively Britain would have split into two political factions, whilst various military leaders established themselves to repel invaders and take over control in their own territories. Combine this with external threats from hostile forces and you have a Britain where, over a period of time, the social structure cracked through the lack of strong central control.
It is that central control which is so fundamental to the Dark Age history of Britain and where the Arthurian legend has its roots. Even though the British had dismissed the Roman administrators, it does not mean that the system of administration in Britain ceased overnight. The existing officials, except perhaps the dismissed vicarius and his retinue, were probably already British, being part of the original tribal aristocracy.
In the pre-Roman days, at times of civil upheaval, the tribes would have looked to a High King, usually the most powerful of the tribal rulers. In effect, whoever might take on the role of the vicarius in Britain would become the equivalent of a High King.
You might wonder what role the usurper emperor Constantine III played in this, and the answer is very little. Constantine had effectively been dismissed along with all the other Roman officials after 409. Despite his British origins, he had virtually turned his back on Britain by trying to establish himself within the Empire fr
om his base in Gaul, at Arles. The British officials must have held a dim view of Constantine as they had appealed not to him, but directly to Honorius. Evidently the appeal was from the pro-Roman faction. In 410, soon after the British expelled the Roman officials, Rome was itself entered and sacked by the Visigoths under Alaric. The Empire was in turmoil. Constantine’s general, Gerontius, an able man who might have been a capable leader in Britain, deserted him and changed his allegiance. He killed Constantine’s son Constans, and raised another general, Maximus, as a rival Emperor. Maximus and Gerontius took control of Spain and parts of Gaul and Constantine found himself isolated. Unable to function, Constantine surrendered and was executed in September 411. Gerontius, unable to capitalise on events, was betrayed by his troops and forced to kill himself.
