When Did the Roman Empire Lose Britain? Later than Many Think?
The general view seems to be that the Western Roman Empire relinquished its government of Britain in 410 AD. The island had been largely stripped of troops by the usurper Constantine III (elevated in 407) when he crossed over to Gaul in his gamble for the throne of the Western Empire. Britain found itself subject to barbarian attack and, as a result, in 409 the British provincials turned against the usurper and expelled his officials. The Emperor Honorius, no doubt gratified at their return to loyalty, was compelled, however, to write to the town councils of Britain advising them to look to their own defenses. The Empire, troubled by usurpation and barbarian invasion could not spare troops for Britain. Alaric, King of the Visigoths (and officially a Roman general), was threatening Rome itself in support of his demand for back-pay to his tribesmen in their role as foederati, or allied soldiers. Indeed Rome itself was taken that year and looted for the outstanding debt. The usurper Constantine III was not put down until 411.
The Roman government probably intended to take the province in hand again after the usurpation and, indeed, a Romanized Britain continued on, at some point outside of the empire. The fifth or sixth century cleric Gildas, in his De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae records a last appeal by the Romano-Britains to the Patrician and general Flavius Aetius in 446, once again asking for troops to help defend the island, however he was busy endeavoring to save what he could of Gaul from various barbarian invaders, Huns among them. No help was sent. Unquestionably, Britain was on its own from then on.
But did the Roman Government never return between 410 and 446? There is, in fact, some evidence of a brief return that ended some time in the early or mid fifth century. Historians such as J. B. Bury, R. G. Collingwood and A. H. M. Jones thought it likely. What is the evidence? One piece is an entry in the Notitia Dignitatum, a late Roman Imperial document which consists of a list of the civil offices and military commands of the Roman Imperial Government, both in its western and eastern halves. This hierarchical list, in theory (it contains some errors), lists all of the major positions of the imperial government, the military commands, and the names of all of the troop units. Among the commands listed is that of the Comes Britanniarum and his troops. His title is Latin for “Count of the Britains,” which is to be understood as that of a general operating in the five provinces into which Britain was by then divided. His appearance in the list isn’t, however, enough by itself to settle the question. To judge the value of the entry we need to have some idea of when the Notitia was drawn up.
Page from the Notitia Dignitatum with the symbols of the Comes Britanniarum. Bodleian Manuscript.
The precise date of the Notita’s composition is unsettled, some scholars dating it to 395 and others as late as 428. To make matters more difficult, the half treating the Western Empire, even if it was compiled at the earlier date, was updated and emended here and there at various times after its composition. Then too, the document contains a number of errors. All of this makes the document (or the western half at least) difficult to use to prove the existence at any particular time of a given civil office or military command. However, while it may be often be an unreliable guide, it seems reasonable to use it where it agrees with or is not inconsistent with other evidence. With that in mind, let’s go back and see what the Notitia says about the Count of the Britains. The Latin reads:
“Intra Britannias cum viro spectabili Comite Britanniarum: Victores Iuniores Britanniciani, Primani Iuniores, Secundani Iuniores.”
and
“Intra Britannias cum viro spectabili Comite Britanniarum: Catafractarii Iuniores, Equites Scutarii Aureliaci, Equites Honoriani Seniores, Equites Stablesiani, Equites Syri, Equites Taifali.”
In English, this is:
“In the Britains with the vir spectabilis [a legally-recognized and high social status] Count of the Britains: the Junior British Victors, the Junior Primani, and the Junior Secundani.”
and
“In in the Britains with the vir spectabilis Count of the Britains: the Junior Armored Cavalry, the Aurelian Scutarii Cavalry, the Senior Honorian Cavalry, the Cavalry of the Stables, the Syrian Cavalry, the Taifal Cavalry.”
All of this is to say that there is a commander called the Count of the Britains, and that he commanded three units of infantry and six of cavalry. The British Victors were likely an auxiliary cohort, the Primani and Secundani Juniores were legions. The names of the cavalry units suggest that two of them at least, were armored— the catafractarii and scutarii (one title refers to being armored, the other to the scutum, or shield). The names of the others suggest their origin though not their armament. The Honoriani were named for the Emperor Honorius, the Syri would seem to have been raised among Syrians, and the Taifali among a German tribe of that name. Successive recruitment would of course dilute or even extinguish the native character, if any, of the troops. The Stablesiani seem to take their name from the Imperial stables. Perhaps they are best seen as purely a “Roman” troops: a unit with no actual or pretended exotic or ethnic origin.
The units of the late Roman army of this period were small, the auxiliary cohorts and cavalry troops probably numbering about 500, the legions 1,000 or 1,200, though there is some suggestion in Ammianus Marcellinus that some legions at least, had grown even smaller. Gone were the 4,500 or 5,000 man legions of the past. In view of these numbers, the nine units of the Count of the Britains made up a small field or campaign army; it was not a garrison army, which is shown by the preponderance of cavalry. The size of this army? Perhaps 4,500, perhaps 5,500.
Can we conclude on the strength of the document that this force was ever brought together and deployed in Britain? Barring any good reason to doubt it, it seems probable that the command was entered into the list because it had a real existence and deployment which had to be noted in an official document. The date of the entry in the Notitia has a certain importance.
The entry is found in a section of the Notitia that appears to have been kept reasonably up to date and therefore postdates the fall of Constantine III in 411, and this supports the view that a small field army was recruited to protect at least some of Roman Britain after his failed usurpation. Furthermore, the Count of the Britains’ command is one of several small field commands that are not attested until well into the 400s, and these commands confer the social status of vir spectabilis rather than the higher status of vir clarissimus usually associated with the commanders of the larger field armies. This command seems to be one of several created in response to the almost constant military crises of the fifth century.
In 1936 R. G. Collingwood discussed some interesting late Roman coin hoards found in Britain, which may have a bearing on the question. The discussion, which a reader will find on pages 299-300 of Roman Britain and the Early English Settlements, is to the effect that while most late coin hoards in Britain contain a good number of early coins and fewer later issues, a large hoard at Richborough shows a preponderance of later coins rather earlier ones, which implies that this hoard, and several smaller ones in East Anglia, Wiltshire and Weymouth are made up of coins shipped from the Continent, very likely to pay troops. Collingwood sees the distribution of the coins as consistent with payment of troops concerned with protecting the southeast of Britain. He writes:
“If a diagonal line is drawn across the map from the middle from the middle of Dorset to Cambridge and the Wash, the segment lying south-east of it including (it may be noted) nine of the major towns and over half of the known villas, comprises all the sites in which coin-series of this characteristic type have been found [p. 300].”
This is the area which Collingwood suggests was under the protection of the Count of the Britains. The walled towns were defended by their own militias, and the territories to the north and west by Celtic foederati. Territorially, it would have been a small return, but it was centered on the much of what was the most Romanized of the British Provinces. Collingwood suggests that a vicarius, a roman official in charge of several provinces, may have been installed in London, and there may have been a provincial governor here or there.
A. H. M. Jones says this in his three-volume The Later Roman Empire:
“. . . it would seem inherently probable that after the suppression of the tyrants of Gaul and the reduction of the rebellious Armoricans Constantius would have brought Britain under the authority of Honorius. What is certain is that there is a chapter in the Notitia which gives the distribution of the troops— a chapter which seems to have been kept more or less up to date down to the end of Honorius’ reign [423]— three regiments of infantry and six squadrons of cavalry are shown in Britain under the command of the Comes Britanniarum [Vol. I, p. 191].”
How long did this Roman presence persist? That is difficult to say. When St. Germanus visited the island in 429 and 440 there seems to have been no longer any official Roman Imperial presence, and the Gallic Chronicle states for the year 442 that Britain had fallen into the power of the Saxons. We know this is not correct, but the statement may be evidence that by this time the Roman Empire no longer held sway over Britain. Whatever the final date of the end of official Roman occupation, it was clearly over by 446 when the British magistrates wrote their unanswered appeal to Flavius Aetius.
###
If you enjoyed this essay, you might consider buying my book about Fifth Century Britain and the Saxon Invasion. [Link]
Further Reading
Notitia Dignitatum, Edition of O. Seeck
Collingwood, R. G and Myers, J. N. L., Roman Britain and the Early English Settlements, Cambridge Histories, Cambridge University Press, 1936
Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire, 284-602, A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey, Vol. I, Cambridge University Press, 1963
Kulikowski, M, The “Notitia Dignitatum” as a Historical Source, Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte, 3rd Qtr, 2000, Band 49, pp 358-377
