The Fall of the Western Empire and the End of Roman BritainAuthor(s): Ian WoodSource: Britannia, Vol. 18 (1987), pp. 251-262Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/526450Accessed: 03/06/2010 17:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Britannia.

http://www.jstor.org

The Fall of The Western Empire and the End of Roman Britain

By IAN WOOD

ETWEEN the usurpation of Constantine III and the death of Aetius there are a

handful of dateable events associated with the British Isles. Of these the best recorded are the two visits of Germanus to Britain in 429 and c. 435.' The narrative

account of these visits, however, is contained in Constantius's Vita Germani, a work in which literary and theological concerns may well triumph over factual accuracy.2 Specul- ation about sub-Roman Britain on the basis of Constantius's account is a fascinating, but dangerous, pastime.3 If we wish to stay on relatively firm ground, we must consider the voyages of Germanus, as well as subsequent contacts between Britain and the continent, in the context of events south of the Channel.

The 429 mission is mentioned not only by Constantius, but also by Prosper, in both his Chronicle and his attack on John Cassian, the Contra Collatorem. In the first source we are told that 'Agricola, a Pelagian, son of the Pelagian bishop Severianus, corrupts the churches of Britain through the insinuation of his doctrine. But at the suggestion of the Deacon Palladius, Pope Celestine sends Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, as his vicar, and having overthrown the heretics, he directs the Britons back to the catholic faith.'4 In the Contra Collatorem Prosper states that Celestine 'liberated Britain with active concern, when he excluded certain enemies of grace, who were living in the land of their origin, from that hideout in the Ocean, and having ordained a bishop for the Irish, he strove to preserve the orthodoxy of the Roman island and to make the barbarian island christian.' Celestine's policies thus encompassed both Britain and Ireland, and the entry in Prosper's Chronicle for 429 needs to be seen in conjunction with that for 431; 'Palladius is sent to the Irish believing in Christ, having been ordained by Pope Celestine as their first bishop.'

Naturally this material has been discussed at length in the context of the conversion of Ireland.6 It has also been contrasted with Constantius's account of Germanus's first visit,

1 Constantius, Vita Germani I12-188, 25-7; ed. R. Borius, Constance de Lyon, Vie de saint Germain d'Auxerre, Sources Chretiennes (Paris, 1965) 112. The date for the first visit is supplied by Prosper of Aquitaine, Chronicle 1301ol, ed. T. Mommsen Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH), Auctores Antiquissimi (AA) IX, (Berlin, 1892). For the date of the second visit see Ian Wood, 'The End of Roman Britain: continental evidence and parallels' in M. Lapidge and D. Dumville (eds.), Gildas: New Approaches, Studies in Celtic History V (Woodbridge, 1984), I14-16 and E.A. Thompson, Saint Germanus and the End of Roman Britain, Studies in Celtic History VI (Woodbridge, 1984), 55-70.

2 Wood, op. cit. (note i), 9-12. Thompson, Saint Germanus, op. cit. (note i), is the most sustained attempt to extract information from

Constantius. In my view he does not make enough allowance for the nature of the text, but his discussion is nevertheless extremely important. 4 Prosper, Chronicle 13o01. 5 Prosper, Contra Collatorem 21, J.P. Migne, Patrologia Latina 51, col. 27I; see Thompson, op. cit. (note i), 29-30.

6e.g. R.P.C. Hanson, Saint Patrick, his origins and career (Oxford, 1968), 48.

252 IAN WOOD

since the former, unlike Prosper, associated the mission with a British and not a Roman initiative.7 Equally intriguing is Edward Thompson's observation that Prosper, writing c. 433-4, refers to the exile of heretics from Britain in 429, while Constantius associates exile only with the second mission.8 Potentially of greater significance is Thompson's further juxtaposition of this material with Honorius's law of 418 condemning Pelagians to inexorable exile.9 Germanus appears to have been able to enforce an imperial edict in Britain in 429, if not c. 435. This need not imply that imperial authority was re-established in Britain, although Prosper does describe the island as Roman,lt but it suggests that the northern activities of Celestine and his henchmen should be considered against the background of imperial policy.

The period from Valentinian III's return to Ravenna in 425 until the crossing from Africa of Boniface in 432 is marked by the emergence of Aetius as the most powerful figure in the Western Empire, the final step in this process being the death of Felix in 430.11 Alongside developments in Italy we see Aetius asserting control over the Goths of Toulouse, first in raising the siege of Arles of c. 42512 and second in destroying a band of Goths in the same vicinity in c. 430.13 These may not have been isolated events.'4 Further to the north-east Aetius campaigned against the Nori and the luthungi in c. 43o015 and, more important, he regained parts of the Rhineland from the Franks in c. 42816 and made peace with them in c. 432.17 The previous year Aetius had also been campaigning in Gaul, where Hydatius appealed to him to intervene in relations between the Galicians and the Suevi.18 In other words in precisely the years that Celestine was concerning himself with the Christians of Britain and Ireland, Aetius was re-establishing military control over northern Gaul.

If Celestine's work coincides so neatly with that of Aetius, should the two policies be seen as different aspects of a single concern; the reconstruction of the Empire? Within limits this is a possibility, although it should be remembered that Celestine had been elected pope in

423, before Felix and Aetius had come to power, and that his anti-Pelagian policy dates from the beginning of his pontificate.19 Nevertheless, it may be significant that one of the few things known about Felix is that he was thought to have intervened in church affairs to the extent of murdering Patroclus, Bishop of Arles, and Titus, a deacon of Rome.20

Moreover, at least in later tradition, Aetius's wife, if not the great man himself, was remembered for her devotion to the cult of the Holy Apostles at St Peter's in Rome.21 Some

Constantius, Vita Germani 12; Hanson, op. cit. (note 6), 48; Thompson, op. cit. (note i), 79-80. SProsper, Contra Collatorem 21; Constantius, Vita Germani 27; Thompson, op. cit. (note I), 28-9.

9 Migne, Patrologia Latina 48, col. 385; Thompson, op. cit. (note I), 28-9. SProsper, Contra Collatorem 21.

' Prosper, Chronicle 1303; Hydatius, Chronicle 94, ed. T. Mommsen, MGH AA XI (Berlin, 1894). 12 Prosper, Chronicle 1290. 13 Hydatius, Chronicle 92. 14 Chronicle of 452, IO2, ed. T. Mommsen, MGH AA IX, is probably to be equated with Prosper, Chronicle

1290, despite the chronological discrepancy. There is also the dateless reference in Merobaudes's first panegyric; see F.M. Clover, 'Flavius Merobaudes', Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. NS lxi pt I (1971), 13; 41.

15 Hydatius, Chronicle 93, 95; Chronicle of 452, io6. 16 Prosper, Chronicle 1298. 17 Hydatius, Chronicle 98.

8 Hydatius, Chronicle 96. 19 0O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius (Stuttgart, 1975), 244-53. 2() Prosper, Chronicle 1292. 21 Gregory of Tours, Liber Historiarum II 7, ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, MGH Scriptores Rerum

Merovingicarum I (i) (Hannover, 1951). Aetius was thought to be involved in the Chelidonius scandal in the 44o's, Vita Patrum lurensium 18, ed. F. Martine, Vie des Peres du Jura, Sources Chretiennes 142 (Paris, 1968).

THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE AND THE END OF ROMAN BRITAIN 253

careful co-ordination of the political and military policies of Felix and Aetius with the ecclesiastical activities of Celestine is by no means out of the question.

The second visit of Germanus to Britain can be set in a similar context to the first. The date of the mission is determined by the death of Germanus in Ravenna, which seems to have occurred in

437.22 According to Constantius the journey to the imperial palace, which followed directly after the second British mission, was undertaken as a result of an appeal by the people of Armorica against Aetius's decision to unleash Goar and his Alans on them, because of the rebellion of Tibatto.23 This rebellion and its suppression are assigned to the twelfth and fourteenth years of Theodosius's reign by the Chronicle of 452, whose account seems to coincide nicely with that of Constantius.24

It would be wrong, however, to suggest that this reconstruction of events is watertight. The evidence for the death of Germanus is inconsistent and the choice of 437 merely involves less special pleading than any later date.25 There is a great danger in putting too much weight on any hagiographer's narrative, while the Chronicle of 452 is not without its difficulties.26 Nevertheless, it is worth noting the amount of imperial activity in the second half of the 430s. From Hydatius we hear of a Gothic siege of Narbonne in 436, which was raised by Aetius in 43727 Prosper's account differs in detail; the siege of Narbonne in 436 is raised by Aetius's general Litorius.28 Subsequently in 437 the Huns are brought in against the Goths29 and in 438 the anti-Gothic policy is progressing well.30 Moreover, just as Aetius had earlier extended his authority on the lower Rhine in opposition to the Franks, in the mid-43os the Rhineland played host to further campaigns, this time against the Burgun- dians, who were savaged first by Aetius himself and subsequently by his Hunnish allies.31 The assault on Tibatto and the Gallic Bacaudae fits neatly into this period of imperial activity, which also provides an interesting backdrop for Germanus's second visit to Britain.

By comparison with the other evidence for contacts between Britain and the continent, that relating to the missions of Germanus is remarkably full. Nevertheless, it may be possible to elucidate something of the two subsequent events relating to Britain for which we have evidence. First there is the infamous entry in the Chronicle of 452; 'Britain (Britanniae), having hitherto been overrun by various calamities and events, is subjected to Saxon authority.'32 Molly Miller suggested that this was a Carolingian interpolation on the grounds that its chronology is paralleled only in Bede, that the entry itself is spread over two years and because of its use of the plural, Britanniae.33 None of these arguments hold water; Britanniae is also used by both Prosper and Constantius34 - it is clearly normal for fifth-century writers; as for the chronological parallel, it depends upon Miller's own interpretation of the Chronicle's entry as referring to the adventus Saxonum35 together with her acceptance of its olympiad dates. She makes no reference to the generally more reliable

22 Wood, op. cit. (note 1), 14-16; Thompson, op. cit. (note 1), 57-66. 23 Constantius, Vita Germani 28, 40. 24 Chronicle of 452, 117, ii9; Wood, op. cit. (note I), 16; Thompson, op. cit. (note 1), 65-6. 25 Wood, op. cit. (note 1), 14-16; Thompson, op. cit. (note 1), 57-61. 26 M. Miller, Britannia ix (1978), 315-8; P. Bartholomew, Britannia xiii (1982), 269-70. 27 Hydatius, Chronicle 107, o110. 28 Prosper, Chronicle 1324. 29 Prosper, Chronicle 1326. 30 Prosper, Chronicle 1333. 31 Prosper, Chronicle 1322; Chronicle of 452, 118; Hydatius, Chronicle io8, o110. 32 Chronicle of 452, 126. 33 Miller, op. cit. (note 26), 317-8; reiterated by Bartholomew, op. cit. (note 26), 270. 34 Prosper, Contra Collatorem 21; Constantius, Vita Germani 12, I4, 25. 35 The parallels listed in Miller, op. cit. (note 26), 317 are all references to the 'adventus Saxonum', but there is

nothing in the Chronicle of 452, 126, to suggest that the entry concerns an 'adventus'.

254 IAN WOOD

regnal chronology which assigns the event, as Mommsen pointed out, to 441-2. Indeed the olympiads are consistently out of line with the regnal dates from the 420s onwards because the chronicler mistakenly assumed that Honorius's thirty-two year reign began on his father's death and not with the joint rule of Theodosius and his two sons, which was inaugurated in 392-3.36

To strengthen the case for Bedan influence Miller also drew attention to the date of Magnus Maximus's usurpation, which is given as 381 in both the Chronicle of 452 and in the Recapitulatio of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica.37 There are undoubtedly chronological problems with the Chronicle's account of Maximus, but that is no reason for thinking that the reference to his usurpation was drawn from Bede; it is necessary to take the whole set of annals relating to Maximus as a unit38 - as such it is quite different from the single entry in the Historia. Moreover chronological inaccuracy is no proof that a chronicle is not contemporary with the events it describes, as a set of comparisons with the unquestionably authentic chronicles of Prosper and Hydatius makes abundantly clear. The date given for the sack of Rome by Hydatius is 4o9, by Prosper, 410, and by the Chronicle of 452, 4II.39 The settlement of the Goths in Aquitaine is placed in 418 by Hydatius, 419 (arguably the correct date) by Prosper and 415 by the Chronicle of 452,40 whose account may, however, be in part justified by Paulinus of Pella's Eucharisticus, which shows that Goths were being billeted on Aquitanian aristocrats during Athaulf's reign.41 The Vandal crossing to Africa is dated variously 429 (by Hydatius), 427 (by Prosper) and 431 (by the Chronicle of 452).42 Most startling of all, the Council of Chalcedon, which is not mentioned by Hydatius, nor suggestively, by the Chronicle of 452, is most peculiarly described by Prosper, despite his papal connections, as being summoned in 450 and concluding in

453.43 To be absolutely

scrupulous we should admit that except for certain events, which can be tied down firmly because they are associated with official documents, much of our fifth-century chronology is decidedly hypothetical, although modern historians peddle it as fact.

As for the division of the final British entry in the Chronicle of 452 between two dates, it is in all probability a copyist's error, but one that was made very early on in the transmission of the text, because it is enshrined, oddly enough, in all three manuscripts, every one of which breaks the entry at the same point.44 It may even be that the division originated with the Chronicle's original compiler, who seems to have gathered his material in the fifth or early sixth century, to judge by his semi-Pelagian stance,45 and his reference to the Vandals still holding Africa.46 The absence of any indication of the length of Valentinian III's reign47 and the lack of knowledge about Chalcedon, might indicate that the Chronicle was compiled in 452 itself, and this would coincide nicely with the fact that, following the regnal

36 Chronicle of 452, 32; as a result the two dating systems are out of step by entry 88. For the joint rule of Theodosius and his son, Prosper, Chronicle 1198; J.F. Matthews, Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court AD 364-425 (Oxford, 1975), 239.

3Miller, op. cit. (note 26), 316-7; Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica V 24, ed. C. Plummer, Baedae Opera Historica

(Oxford, 1896). 38 P.J. Casey in Casey (ed.), The End of Roman Britain, BAR Brit. Ser. 71 (1979), 70-2 provides a

thought-provoking survey of the entries in question. 39 Hydatius, Chronicle 43; Prosper, Chronicle I1240; Chronicle of 452, 65. 40 Hydatius, Chronicle 69; Prosper, Chronicle I127I1; Chronicle of 452, 73. 41 Paulinus, Eucharisticus II. 282-90, in Ausonius, vol. 2, ed. H.G. Evelyn-White (London, 1921). 42 Hydatius, Chronicle 9o; Prosper, Chronicle 1295; Chronicle of 452, IO8. 43 Prosper, Chronicle 1362, 1369. 44 Chronicle of 452, 126 and Mommsen's note, MGH AA IX, p. 66o. 45 Chronicle of 452 44, 81, o104; Wood, op. cit. (note I), 18. 46 Chronicle of 452, I129. 41 Chronicle of 452, IOI, 137; compare I, o10, 32, 94-

THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE AND THE END OF ROMAN BRITAIN 255

dating system, the final entries are accurately dated.48 Even if the compilation was not made in the fifth century, it is difficult to believe that it is not based on material from that period.

An investigation of the Chronicle's sources may, in fact, help us understand the meaning of the annal concerning the end of Roman Britain. We know that the compiler was working from written material since he states that 'in the aforementioned consulship Aetius, giving way to Boniface, whom the queen had recalled from Africa, retires to better fortified places',49 but he provides no earlier mention of a consul. We should not in all probability assume from the consular reference that he had an annalistic text before him. A chronological reference would be equally appropriate in a more literary history. That historical accounts of a literary nature were among the sources used by the chronicler is further suggested by the somewhat idiosyncratic nature of his compilation, not so much by his particular concerns with semi-Pelagianism, the Gallic Bacaudae,5o the fate of Valence1 or even the history of Britain, as by his tendency to group material together and thus provide a somewhat fuller account of certain issues than can be found in the other western chroniclers of the period. The first thirty entries, for instance, provide a remarkably full account not just of Maximus's career,52 but also of the religious crises in Milan revolving around Ambrose and Justina and subsequently, although less remarkably, the interventions of Theodosius against both Maximus and Eugenius.53 Similarly, there is an unusual amount of detail relating to events in southern Gaul after the sack of Rome,54 although later in the Chronicle there is a surprising lack of material relating to the Goths and their conflicts with Aetius, this despite a vigorously anti-arian annal for 451 .55

Two other clusters of evidence stand out in the Chronicle. The first is assigned to the year 411; it begins with a general statement about Roman weakness, which is followed by references to disasters in Britain, Gaul and Spain. The group of entries concludes with the sack of Rome.56 The second cluster begins less obviously with the departure of Aetius for Italy and the cession of Valence to the Alans in 44o. The next four years are concerned with the Saxons taking over Britain, the Alans Gallia Ulterior, the Burgundians Sapaudia and finally, symbolic of the collapse of Roman power, the Vandals Carthaginian Africa.57 The parallels between these two blocks of material are striking; both list a series of general disasters which culminate in the capture of a single city, Rome in the first instance, Carthage in the second. In each case the final event is misdated; the fall of Rome by a year, the capture of Carthage by five years, unless we are to understand the annal to refer to a subsequent treaty consigning Africa to the Vandals.58

If we assume that the Chronicle's date for the fall of Carthage has no basis in fact, we must also accept that this has severe implications for the preceding entries, particularly since the cessions of Valence, Gallia Ulterior and Sapaudia are recorded nowhere else. Indeed, apart from the entry relating to Carthage, it is only the British annal which receives independent support from any source since the same event is recorded in the Chronicle of

48 Even the obit for Galla Placidia, Chronicle of 452, 136, seems to be preferred to that in Hydatius, Chronicle, 148; J.R. Martindale, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire II A.D. 395-527 (Cambridge, 1980), 889. 49 Chronicle of 452, IO9.

5o Chronicle of 452, 117, 119, 133. 1 Chronicle of 452, 7I, 124. 52 For the Maximus entries see Casey, op. cit. (note 38), 70-2.

53 Chronicle of 452, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 29, 30, 31. 54 Chronicle of 452, 67-74. 55 Chronicle of 452, 138; in general on arianism 8, 13, 14, 15, 19, 22, 25, 51. 56 Chronicle of 452, 61-5. 5 Chronicle of 452, 123-9; comments on Eastern devastation follow, 130-2. 58 Prosper, Chronicle 1347.

256 IAN WOOD

5II under the sixteenth year of Theodosius and Valentinian, that is 440o.59 If one is to take a really stringent line on the evidence contained in the Chronicle of 452 the last British entry has more claims to being an original annal, and not an interpolation, than much else in the text. Nevertheless, comparison between the two Gallic Chronicles does raise difficulties with regard to the Saxon take-over of Britain. The Chronicle of 452 dates the event to 44 1-2

(or according to Miller 445-6)6o and places it before the fall of Carthage, that of 511 enters it under 44o after the fall of Carthage, which it places two years earlier.61 Clearly one or other of these texts is confused.

A simple hypothesis, however, may both explain and excuse the confusion. As we have seen, the Chronicle of 452 includes a number of groups of annals which may have been drawn from a literary source - or from several literary sources. In two cases, those

culminating in the sack of Rome and the fall of Carthage, the groups are made up of a list of

general disasters, concluding with the capture of a single city. If these lists were drawn from

literary surveys of the Roman empire at particular moments in time,62 it is possible to

envisage that the source ignored chronological accuracy and placed Rome and Carthage last for effect, whilst the Chronicle, misunderstanding the nature of the list, caused confusion by adding dates. One might indeed go further and, following the chronology of the Chronicle

of 511, see the fall of Carthage as providing the context for the cessions of land to the barbarians recorded in the Chronicle of 452. We have seen how the visits of Germanus to Britain coincide with imperial success in northern Gaul. Imperial failure doubtless had its

repercussions on the relations between Britain and the Empire. Before considering the implications of the annals relating to Britain c. 44o it is worth

turning to the final dateable event relating to the island in the fifth century. According to Gildas the Britons made one last appeal to Aetius, thrice consul, probably in 446.63 The

specific nature of Gildas's reference distinguishes it from the majority of his account of early fifth-century Britain, most of which is generalised and rhetorical. Consideration of Aetius's activities in the mid 440s to see what the continental context of the British appeal may have been is not easy; the chronicles unfortunately provide no help. Nevertheless, two sources, Merobaudes's panegyric on the third consulship of Aetius and Sidonius Apollinaris's panegyric on Majorian, may both contain relevant information. The former talks of the restoration of peace in the Rhineland and Armorica,64 exactly the areas pacified at the

suggested time of Germanus's second British visit. Merobaudes may, of course, have been

exaggerating Aetius's success, but he must at least have expected his audience to accept that Gaul was peaceful in 446. Moreover there is possible supporting evidence in that silver coins are thought to have been struck at Trier in 445-6.6 Sidonius's account of a victory won by Majorian against the Franks at vicus Helena may well relate to this same period.66 Despite the unspecific nature of these panegyric references to Aetius's activities in the mid

440s, there is enough to suggest that imperial commanders were active in the north of Gaul in the period immediately preceding Aetius's third consulship. The British appeal may have come in response to this activity.

It seems, therefore, that the events in Britain for which we have precise evidence are

59 Chronicle of 511, 602, ed. T. Mommsen, MGH AA IX. 60 Chronicle of 452, 126; Miller, op. cit. (note 26), 317. 61 Chronicle of 511, 598. 62 e.g. Ammianus Marcellinus, XXX 7, 5-11, ed. and trans. J.C. Rolfe (London, 1964). 63 Gildas, De Excidio Britanniae I 20, ed. T.H. Mommsen, MGH AA XIII (Berlin, 1898). ' Merobaudes, Panegyric II, frag. i, ed. and trans. F.M. Clover, 'Flavius Merobaudes, a translation and

historical commentary', Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. lxi pt 1 (1971), 13, 64. 65 ibid., 43, 45; E.M. Wightman, Gallia Belgica (London, 1985), 302, is more cautious about the date. 66 Sidonius Apollinaris, Carm. V, II 210-30, ed. A. Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire vol. I (Paris, 1960).

THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE AND THE END OF ROMAN BRITAIN 257

chronologically related to imperial success or failure in northern Gaul. For this correlation to be meaningful, however, it is necessary to argue that the emperor's authority was not constantly maintained in the Rhineland or north of the Loire after 4o6.67 This is, of course, impossible to prove and one should instantly admit that there may have been a great deal more Roman action in those regions than is recorded in surviving evidence. We do know of military operations in Armorica c. 417 conducted by Exuperantius.68 Moreover there is no firm evidence to date the battle at vicus Helena more accurately than to the period between 428 and 448.69 Nevertheless, there is a case for thinking that imperial initiative in northern Gaul may have been confined to the periods already identified. Until c. 419 Constantius's energies were largely directed towards southern Gaul and Spain;70 Exuperantius's attack on the Bacaudae has recently been seen, plausibly, as a private initiative.71 After 419 Constantius's career was centred largely on Italy, where he became emperor in 421.72 He died in 423.7 For the next two years the usurpation of Johannes and the restoration of Valentinian74 meant that the central government was in no position to build on Const- antius's Gallic achievements. Subsequently Aetius had to begin by re-establishing dominance over the Goths.75 All in all the late 420s were the first time since 4o6 that the emperor at Ravenna could hope to see his authority imposed in northern Gaul and beyond. It is precisely at this moment that Aetius moves against the Rhine and Germanus makes his first journey to Britain.

In 429 we find Celestine involving himself in the problem of British Pelagianism and in 431 he initiates papal involvement in Ireland.76 There then follows a break until Ger- manus's second mission. Similarly after Aetius's defeat of the Franks in c. 43277 imperial military activity in Gaul is unknown until c. 435, when Litorius raises the siege of Narbonne71 subsequent to Aetius's attack on the Burgundians.79 The interlude between 432 and 435, however, is accounted for by the civil war between Boniface and Aetius, and the latter's flight.s8 On his return he had once more to reassert authority in Gaul, only to find in 439 that the real challenge to the empire came from the Vandals in Africa.81 Difficulties had, however, already arisen in Gaul when Aetius's general Litorius was killed as a result of

fighting the Goths at Toulouse.82 Prosper tells us that the Goths then sued humbly for

peace, which may be something of an exaggeration; Jordanes has a rather different interpretation of events.84 On the other hand, the Chronicle of 452 relates that Aetius

67 This is implied by both Wightman, op. cit. (note 65), 300, and Matthews, op. cit. (note 36), 308, 320-I. 68 Rutilius Namatianus, De reditu suo I, 11. 213-6, ed. J.W. and A.M. Duff, Minor Latin Poets (London, 1934);

for the problems of the text at this point, Bartholomew, op. cit. (note 26), 266-8. 69 Most recently, Wightman, op. cit. (note 65), 303. "o Prosper, Chronicle I1243, I1247, 1256, 1259, 1265, 1271; Hydatius, Chronicle 50, 6o, 62, 69. Chronicle of 452,

77, 78. 71 Wightman, op. cit. (note 65), 301-2. 72 Prosper, Chronicle I1273; Hydatius, Chronicle 75; Chronicle of 452, 88. 73 Prosper, Chronicle I1276; Hydatius, Chronicle 76; Chronicle of 452, 88. 74 Prosper, Chronicle 1282, 1286, 1288; Hydatius, Chronicle 83, 84; Chronicle of 452, 92, 93, 99. 75 Prosper, Chronicle 1290; Hydatius, Chronicle 92. 76 Prosper, Chronicle 1301, 1307. 77 Hydatius, Chronicle 98. 7 Prosper, Chronicle 1324; Hydatius, Chronicle I io. 7 Prosper, Chronicle 1322; Hydatius, Chronicle io8, I Io; Chronicle of 452, I I8.

o Prosper, Chronicle 131o; Hydatius, Chronicle 99; Chronicle of 452, o109, II I, 112, I I5. SFor the background see especially R. Moss, Historia xxii (1973), 711-31. 82 Prosper, Chronicle 1335; Hydatius, Chronicle I16.

3 Prosper, Chronicle 1338; see Hydatius, Chronicle 117. 14 Jordanes, Getica XXXIV, 177, ed. T. Mommsen, MGH AA V(I) (Berlin, 1882).

258 IAN WOOD

sorted out problems in Gaul before leaving for Italy,85 and this may provide some support for Prosper's narrative.86 The former source, however, follows the annal on Aetius's departure from Gaul with its list of barbarian gains in southern Gaul, Britain, Gallia Ulterior, Sapaudia and Africa. Allowing for the misplacement of the Carthage entry it makes perfect sense to envisage Aetius restoring imperial power after the death of Litorius, but being interrupted by the seizure of Carthage and having either to leave Gaul to the mercy of the barbarians or at least to make substantial concessions to various barbarian units. In 44o his major concern must have been with the threat posed by the Vandals.

The Chronicle of 452 does not tell us that Aetius returned to Gaul after 44o; its reference to him over the concession of Gallia Ulterior to the Alans is in the pluperfect.87 Indeed the Chronicle does not even credit the general with the defeat of Attila at the Catalaunian Plains.88 Nevertheless, after peace had been negotiated with the Vandals in c. 442,89 it

appears from Merobaudes that Aetius did return to Gaul to re-establish control. This renewed activity may account for the Chronicle of 452's reference to the flight to the Huns of the doctor Eudoxius, who had been involved in a Bacauda.90 It certainly provides an interesting context for the appeal of the Britons directed to Aetius, thrice consul, particularly when it is appreciated that between 439 and 443 the general was in no position to consider problems in the north. The appeal certainly fell on deaf ears, but the request for

help was more realistic in 446 than it would have been in the aftermath of the fall of

Carthage. At first sight such a negative view of imperial activity in Gaul might seem to be ruled out

by the literary evidence; Rutilius Namatianus talks in terms of an ordo renascendi.91 Merobaudes appears to support this, as does Sidonius.92 There is, however, a danger in

accepting the opinions of the aristocracy, or their life-style, as an accurate indication of

imperial authority. Aristocrats were likely to think in terms of continuity; they were conditioned to ape their predecessors. Moreover, despite the fact that the emperor's influence was intermittent, there were moments when it was overwhelming. The presence in Lyons of Majorian in 458 meant the end of a local agreement with the Burgundians and the threat of a heavy fine for what was identified as conspiracy.93 Imperial power could be reasserted in the 45os and the 460S94 and the remains of Roman administration lasted for a

good while longer,95 but that does not prove that the emperor was influential when neither he nor his generals were in the vicinity.

Further, although the literary sources present a picture of continuity, the christian moralists concentrate on different issues and imply considerable disruption.96 Their bleak vision assumes corruption among the upper classes, who consistently act tyrannically and in so doing create a vast pool of dispossessed opponents to the regime. 97 Further, according to

SChronicle of 452, 123. 86 See also Prosper's enigmatic comment on the quarrel between Aetius and Albinus in Gaul; Chronicle 1341 87 Chronicle of 452, 127; this could refer back to the time of Germanus's intervention in favour of the

Armoricans; Constantius, Vita Germani 28. 88 Chronicle of 452, 139. 89 Prosper, Chronicle 1347. C. Courtois, Les Vandales et l'Afrique (Paris, 1955), 173. 9o Chronicle of 452, 133. 91 Rutilius, De reditu suo II 140o; see Matthews, op. cit. (note 36), 325-5 1. 92 Merobaudes, Panegyric II, frag. i; Matthews, op. cit. (note 36), 345-8. " See the discussion in C.E. Stevens, Sidonius Apollinaris and his Age (Oxford, 1933), 40-6. 94 Cf. the crises and expectations caused by the elevation of Julius Nepos as emperor; Sidonius Apollinaris,

epp. V 6 (2); V 7 (1); V 16 (2); VIII 7 (4), ed. Loyen Sidoine Apollinaire vols 2-3 (Paris, 1970). 5 P. Wormald, JRS lxvi (1976), 217-26.

96 P. Courcelle, Histoire litteraire des grandes invasions germaniques (3rd ed., Paris 1964), 79-114, 143-168. 97 Salvian, De gubernatione Dei IV 3-5; V 4-6, ed. F. Pauly, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 8

(Vienna, 1883).

THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE AND THE END OF ROMAN BRITAIN 259

Salvian, although public officials were involved in this tyranny, the exercise of private power was the chief evil.98 The impression is predominantly one of a free-for-all in which the powerful were able to do as they pleased. Such a situation is as likely during a period in which the exercise of imperial authority was intermittent, as in one which saw a steady renaissance of central power.

There is another way of assessing the reality of imperial authority, and that is by examining what we know of the Roman army in the fifth century. At first sight the Notitia Dignitatum suggests that there was extraordinary continuity here, but since it is clear that some of its entries, including those relating to Britain and to the regular forts in Gallia Belgica,99 reflect earlier arrangements which could not have been in force after 410, it is probably best to see the Notitia as an antiquarian document, which has no value as independent evidence for fifth-century conditions.100 Interestingly enough, incontrovertible evidence for Roman troops, as opposed to barbarian mercenaries, is hard to find. There are, of course, general references to milites, who could be Roman,10' but from 406 onwards there is consistent emphasis on irregular troops. In that year Honorius encouraged the provincials and slaves to undertake their own defence.102 In Spain the emperor's relatives, Didymus and Verenianus, attempted to oppose the troops of Constans by arming their own followers103 - exactly as Ecdicius would do over half a century later.104 Constans, meanwhile, was dependent on barbarian troops,105 as was Gerontius,106 and from hence- forth this appears to be the norm. Jovinus was elevated to the imperial title by Goar the Alan and Gundichar the Burgundian.1i7 Aetius's reliance on the Huns is too well-known to require repetition, but against the Bacaudae he used Alans,108 and at the battle of the Catalaunian Plains his army was essentially a confederation of barbarians.109 Even warriors who in previous centuries would have been members of the Roman army, the Armoricans and the Olibriones, are described by Jordanes as 'once Roman soldiers and now the flower of the allied forces.'110 Jordanes is admittedly not a contemporary source, but Anthemius employed a group of independent Britons under Riothamus against Euric.111 Meanwhile Aegidius, Majorian's magister militum, appears to have depended on Frankish forces.112 Not surprisingly among the most significant Romans at this time were men who had close connection with barbarian troops - Aetius and, above all, Avitus, who is plausibly depicted by Sidonius as the architect of the Catalaunian confederacy, and who was himself elevated to imperial office in 456 by the Goths.113 No later Roman worked so successfully with the

SSalvian, De gubernatione Dei VII 21.

9 P. Salway, Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981), 424, 437-8. Also Wightman, op. cit. (note 65), 300oo. 100oo But see the interesting speculation of Salway, op. cit. (note 99), 476 n. 2. 101 e.g. Salvian, De gubernatione Dei VII II (45); 12 (53). 102 Codex Theodosianus VII 13, 16-17; ed. T. Mommsen and P.M. Meyer (Berlin 1904-5). 103 Orosius, Liber Historiarum adversus paganos VII 4o (6), ed. C. Zangemeister, Corpus Scriptorum

Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 5 (Vienna, 1882). 104 Sidonius, ep. III 3 (7)- 105 Orosius, Liber Historiarum VII 4o (7). 106 Zosimus, Historia Nova VI 5, ed. L. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1887). 107 Olympiodorus, fragment 18, ed. R.C. Blockley, The fragmentary classicising historians of the Later Roman

Empire, Vol 2 (Liverpool, 1983). lo8 Constantius, Vita Germani, 28. o109 Sidonius, carm. VII 11. 316-56, where Aetius is explicitly sine milite; also Jordanes, Getica XXXVI, 191. 110 Jordanes, Getica XXXVI, 191. 111 Jordanes, Getica XLV, 237-8. Sidonius, ep. I 7 (5). 112 J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long-haired Kings (London, 1962), i6o-I; Gregory of Tours, Liber Historiarum

II 12, I8. 113 Sidonius, carm, VII 11. 339-53, 489-518.

260 IAN WOOD

barbarians, although Sidonius attributed similar powers of diplomacy to Ferreolus.114 With this in mind it is perhaps best to interpret Roman authority in Gaul after 406 as

primarily hegemonial; it was possible for the aristocracy of the south and of the Rhone valley to see themselves as living lives similar to those of their fourth-century predecessors and it was possible for a Roman general to assert imperial authority wherever he and his army were to be found; at the same time the settled barbarians were to a large extent independent and their relationship with the central government uncertain. Moreover, even in supposedly Roman areas it was not so much the power of the state as the private power of the aristocracy which mattered most, in both civilian and ecclesiastical life; hence the fortified villa of Pontius Leontius and the private army of Ecdicius, hence also the great episcopal saints of the period keeping their dioceses afloat through charitable action. 115

Against this background the position of sub-Roman Britain becomes clearer; from the emperor's point of view involvement in British affairs was impossible except when the lands south of the Channel were reasonably secure. For the Britons, communication with central imperial authority would have been difficult and worthless unless Aetius or one of his subordinates was active in northern Gaul. Only in such circumstances could there be any expectation of aid against the Picts and Scots. This conclusion, however, has important implications for our understanding of the evidence for fifth-century Britain; although we have a handful of dateable events, these tell us more about imperial success and failure than about insular problems. The appeal to Aetius in 446, for instance, need not imply that the threat from the Picts and the Scots was particularly severe in that year; the date of the appeal tells us no more than that the Britons thought there was a chance of securing help while Aetius was in the north.

If we wish to learn about sub-Roman Britain there is little that we can do, other than investigate the cultural and social worlds of Patrick and Gildas, despite the enormous chronological problems presented by both of them."116 The continental sources, which

appear to provide the basis for a narrative account of insular history, in fact illuminate the milieu in which they were written rather than offer dates and facts which are significant from a British viewpoint. This is as true of the Chronicles as of Constantius's Vita Germani."117 Thus although we can accept the authenticity of the last British entry in the Chronicle of 452, we cannot deduce from that entry the occurrence of some irrevocable event from which Britain never recovered. The annal is merely an indication that in continental opinion the island had passed out of imperial jurisdiction, and in the context of the fall of Carthage the opinion was a valid one. That the catastrophe of c. 440 does not

appear in Gildas is thus a matter of no consequence. Its absence from the De Excidio Britanniae does not undermine Gildas's account, but neither does the insignificance of the date lend credibility to his narrative.

The visits of Germanus, however, do allow more room for reasonable hypothesis than do the events of 440 and 446.118 In particular it is worth making some attempt to understand the British context of Celestine's policies. Here the Pelagian controversy provides a

possible starting point. Pelagianism should not be seen as the indigenous heresy of the Britons, despite Pelagius's origins. His ideas evolved in Rome."l9 It was also Rome that created the notion of a Pelagian heresy, albeit with the forceful backing of the African

114 Sidonius, ep. VII I2 (3). 115" Above all Patiens of Lyons; Sidonius, ep. VI 12.

116 For an argument in favour of an early Gildas, Wood, op. cit. (note I), 22-3. 117 For the difficulties in Constantius's text, Wood, op. cit. (note I), 9-12.

118 Wood, op. cit. (note I), 9-12, 16-17; Thompson, op. cit. (note I), offers a more ambitious reconstruction. 119 C.P. Hammond, Journ. of Theol. Stud. n.s. xxviii (1977), 383, 421-7.

THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE AND THE END OF ROMAN BRITAIN 261

bishops,120 through a stream of imperial legislation and papal dictates beginning in 418.121 Before this legislation Pelagius's ideas were officially nothing other than orthodox. The condemnation of his theology, however, must have reached Britain relatively soon after its promulgation. Even if we do not believe that Germanus's first mission resulted from a British appeal,122 it seems that the island knew of the legislation against Pelagian ideas by 429. The news may have been transmitted directly from Rome or Ravenna to the British church; it could otherwise have been brought across the Channel by Pelagians fleeing to the island to avoid persecution in areas more accessible to imperial authority.123 Essentially the British crisis of 429 is concerned with the acceptance or rejection of a Roman definition of faith; the opponents of this definition will inevitably have included refugees from the continent who had no wish to fall foul of the Law for a second time. Prosper and Constantius, who both record the exile of Pelagians from Britain,124 show that the heretics were right to be so concerned. While denying the thesis that Pelagianism went hand in hand with British independence in 410, 125 it is difficult to deny that the religious debates of 429 must have raised the question of the desirability of becoming directly dependent upon the Empire once again. For the Pelagians such an idea would have been anathema. In the crises of 429 and c. 435 it is not too fanciful to see two parties with differing views on imperial authority. At the times of Germanus's visits those in favour of a rapprochement with the Empire seem to have had the upper hand, not least because, as we have seen, Aetius was active in northern Gaul.

If Britain were divided between those who wished to see the restoration of imperial power and those who preferred their island independent this might provide a context for the origins of the civil wars recorded by Gildas. 26 It might also help to account for the extraordinary career of Riothamus.127 Even allowing for exaggeration on the part of Jordanes, Riothamus crossed from Britain to the continent, where he was active in 469, with a considerable body of men. It is difficult to believe that a substantial war-band was unable to establish a place for itself in Britain at this time, despite the civil wars and external threats. Riothamus is perhaps best seen as a general who left Britain because he wanted to serve the imperial cause, as indeed he did through his alliance with Anthemius.128 He and his men could thus be the successors to the British pro-Roman party of the first half of the century; retirement to an estate in the Lyonnais would have been a fitting end to their careers.129

The missions of Germanus, the 446 appeal to Aetius and the continental career of Riothamus seem to imply the existence of a pro-imperial party in Britain between 4Io and the middle of the fifth century. The Pelagians suggest that there was also an opposing viewpoint on the island. Material from Prosper, Constantius, Sidonius and Gildas seems nicely compatible with such an interpretation. Even so, this is only a hypothesis. The last British entry in the Gallic Chronicles in any case remains an enigma. From a continental viewpoint, it makes sense in terms of the aftermath of the capture of Carthage, but any developments in Britain lying behind the annals remain resolutely obscure. The Britons

121 On the development of papal attitudes towards Pelgian thought, Wermelinger, op. cit. (note 19). 121 Wermelinger, op. cit. (note 19), 196-209. 122 As in Constantius, Vita Germani 12. 123 Prosper, Contra Collatorein 21 describes Britain as a hideout. 124 Prosper, Contra Collatorern 21I; Constantius, Vita Germani 27. 125 Wood, op. cit. (note 1), 6-7. 126 Gildas, De excidio Britanniae I 2I(I), 26 (2). 127 Jordanes, Getica XLV, 237-8; Sidonius, epp. I, 7(5); III 9. 128 Jordanes, Getica XLV, 237; Sidonius, ep. I 7 (5). 129 Sidonius, ep. III 9-

262 IAN WOOD

may not have recognised 429, c. 435, c. 440 or 446 as being significant years. The Gallic writers, however, were interested in the exercise of imperial power on the continent and not in developments across the Channel; the evidence they provide of sub-Roman Britain is primarily an index of this concern.

Department of History, University of Leeds