Roman Britain

[Al Kowsky]

I stumbled upon an interesting overview published by T/C The Collector: When and Why Did Roman Britain End?, authored by Cameron Hughes. This is a topic that has been debated for a long time that specialists in Romano-British coinage may find especially interesting ☺️.

https://www.thecollector.com/when-did-roman-britain-end/

Sun setting over Hadrian's wall.

 

 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Al Kowsky
spelling correction

[expat]

Seems to me to be inline with what I learned when I was younger. The Romans were finally given their expulsion around 409BC, repercussions were inevitable but fairly short term. It also didn´t happen at once, with territories and regions gradually handing over the reigns to the Britons. But of course, the decline started way before that.

Edited September 3, 2023 by expat
Corrected a spelling mistake

[Heliodromus]

4 hours ago, Al Kowsky said:

I stumbled upon an interesting overview published by T/C The Collector: When and Why Did Roman Britain End?

That site is a great resource - I wasn't aware of it before, but they have tons of similar articles there (I got tired of scrolling down to check them all out!).

There's another article here related the end of Britain, as told by the monk Gildas, leading into the legend of King Arthur.

https://www.thecollector.com/roman-britain-and-king-arthur/

And another one that caught my eye was this one on the Roman trade route to India, starting at Alexandria then sailing down the Nile before joining the Red Sea at Berenice and continuing down to then cross the Arabian Sea. I have a particular interest in this since I have a double-holed Constantine aureus that may have travelled this route since these double piercings are characteristic of Indian use as jewelrey. The article illustrates an Augustus aureus, found in India, with a cut across the emperor's face which is also characteristic of Roman gold circulating in India.

https://www.thecollector.com/indian-ocean-trade-ancient-rome/

Edited September 3, 2023 by Heliodromus

[John Conduitt]

Interesting read, thanks. There are a lot of questions around the end of Roman Britain.

- Had the Celts really moved from rural areas into cities, only to move back again when the cities became less defensible? Presumably, most of them never left, with villas and estates another way to continue to control and make money from them, along the lines of serfdom. England managed to become wealthy with few people living in cities for centuries, so it seems unlikely the Romans had to rely on cities.

- I dont know if I believe the Celts sacrificed their own cultures. That would go against the usual Roman strategy of assimilation. The pattern of hoarding around 400 and the pattern of Saxon settlement suggests they were still living in their old communities to the end. It's not easy to tell, though, since most of what we know of the Celts comes from their coins, and they definitely had to stop striking those.

- Why was so much Roman silver buried in Britain in the late 300s and early 400s? Where did it come from - did Rome pay mercenaries for Britain's protection (in the absence of troops) long before 407? If so, it would seem the end of Roman control was more abrupt (and self-fulfilling). It didn't really matter if there were soldiers or not, cities or not, until the money stopped flowing.

[Al Kowsky]

2 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

Interesting read, thanks. There are a lot of questions around the end of Roman Britain.

- Had the Celts really moved from rural areas into cities, only to move back again when the cities became less defensible? Presumably, most of them never left, with villas and estates another way to continue to control and make money from them, along the lines of serfdom. England managed to become wealthy with few people living in cities for centuries, so it seems unlikely the Romans had to rely on cities.

- I dont know if I believe the Celts sacrificed their own cultures. That would go against the usual Roman strategy of assimilation. The pattern of hoarding around 400 and the pattern of Saxon settlement suggests they were still living in their old communities to the end. It's not easy to tell, though, since most of what we know of the Celts comes from their coins, and they definitely had to stop striking those.

- Why was so much Roman silver buried in Britain in the late 300s and early 400s? Where did it come from - did Rome pay mercenaries for Britain's protection (in the absence of troops) long before 407? If so, it would seem the end of Roman control was more abrupt (and self-fulfilling). It didn't really matter if there were soldiers or not, cities or not, until the money stopped flowing.

 

John, you raise some interesting points 🤔. Daphne Nash, in her book Coinage In The Celtic World, goes into great detail on the Roman influence on different areas within Celtic Britain. Some areas were quickly Romanized, especially areas on the coastal channel that were trading with Rome, but other Celtic tribes in the more remote areas retained their identity for a long time. Quoting Daphne Nash, "After his death in AD 59-60 (Cogidubnus), the rebellion of his wife Boudicca induced further Roman conquests, and with them the last of the independent coinages of the Celtic world."

[John Conduitt]

37 minutes ago, Al Kowsky said:

 

John, you raise some interesting points 🤔. Daphne Nash, in her book Coinage In The Celtic World, goes into great detail on the Roman influence on different areas within Celtic Britain. Some areas were quickly Romanized, especially areas on the coastal channel that were trading with Rome, but other Celtic tribes in the more remote areas retained their identity for a long time. Quoting Daphne Nash, "After his death in AD 59-60 (Cogidubnus), the rebellion of his wife Boudicca induced further Roman conquests, and with them the last of the independent coinages of the Celtic world."

Yes it's true some were Romanised, but this was even before the conquest, so rather unforced. The Atrebates were client kings of the Romans because they liked the flow of Roman wine and wanted their help in repelling the Catuvellauni tribe. Whether the average Celt had to do much more than pay lip service to the Roman gods, I don't know. A bit like in Egypt where they simply changed the names of the local gods to Roman ones and everyone got on with their business. Having said that, the Durotriges rather suffered economically for not embracing the Romans, so perhaps it worked with a carrot rather than a stick.

[Al Kowsky]

14 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

Yes it's true some were Romanised, but this was even before the conquest, so rather unforced. The Atrebates were client kings of the Romans because they liked the flow of Roman wine and wanted their help in repelling the Catuvellauni tribe. Whether the average Celt had to do much more than pay lip service to the Roman gods, I don't know. A bit like in Egypt where they simply changed the names of the local gods to Roman ones and everyone got on with their business. Having said that, the Durotriges rather suffered economically for not embracing the Romans, so perhaps it worked with a carrot rather than a stick.

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

One of the things I am interested in is the concept of the Saxon Shore, where a line of Roman sea fortresses were built along the east coast of England. Presumably these were erected both against marauding pirates and later Saxons and Jutes from Gotland. It may be that Carausius was one of these local commanders who was elevated to the purple. At any rate, according to the Notitia Dignitatum there was a title known as Count of the Saxon Shore in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.

Chat GPT says this:

The Count of the Saxon Shore was the head of the Saxon Shore military command of the later Roman Empire 1. The post was possibly created during the reign of Constantine I, and was probably in existence by AD 367 when Nectaridus is elliptically referred to as such a leader by Ammianus Marcellinus 1. The Count’s remit covered the southern and eastern coasts of Roman Britain during a period of increasing maritime raids from barbarian tribes outside the empire 1. The Count was one of three commands covering Britain at the time, along with the northern Dux Britanniarum and central Comes Britanniarum 1. Originally, the command may have covered both sides of the English Channel as well as Britain’s western coast, as Carausius’s position had, but by the end of the 4th century, the role had been diminished and Gaul had its own dux tractus Armoricani and dux Belgicae Secundae 1. In 367, a series of invasions from Picts, Franks, Saxons, Scots and Attacotti appears to have defeated the army of Britain and resulted in the death of Nectaridus 1. Under Count Theodosius’s reforms, the command was reorganized slightly. Although Ammianus speaks of a ‘conspiracy of the savages,’ he states that the Saxons and Francs attacked the Gallic (French) regions, while in Britain, the savages in question were only Picts, Scots and Attacotti 1. The 5th-century Notitia Dignitatum lists the names of the Saxon Shore forts from Norfolk to Hampshire that were under the Count’s command. Further stations up the North Sea coast were probably also his responsibility. Forces he controlled were classified as limitanei or frontier troops.

[John Conduitt]

16 minutes ago, Al Kowsky said:

Nice classic coin. It's hard to get those centred and in good condition without big money.

Here's Verica, kissing up to the Romans before the conquest he caused.

Verica Minim, AD10-40

Silchester or Chichester, Atrebates tribe. Silver, 7mm, 0.35g. Wine cup; REX above. Eagle right; VERICA COMMI F around (S 159).

[John Conduitt]

16 minutes ago, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

One of the things I am interested in is the concept of the Saxon Shore, where a line of Roman sea fortresses were built along the east coast of England. Presumably these were erected both against marauding pirates and later Saxons and Jutes from Gotland. It may be that Carausius was one of these local commanders who was elevated to the purple. At any rate, according to the Notitia Dignitatum there was a title known as Count of the Saxon Shore in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.

Chat GPT says this:

The Count of the Saxon Shore was the head of the Saxon Shore military command of the later Roman Empire 1. The post was possibly created during the reign of Constantine I, and was probably in existence by AD 367 when Nectaridus is elliptically referred to as such a leader by Ammianus Marcellinus 1. The Count’s remit covered the southern and eastern coasts of Roman Britain during a period of increasing maritime raids from barbarian tribes outside the empire 1. The Count was one of three commands covering Britain at the time, along with the northern Dux Britanniarum and central Comes Britanniarum 1. Originally, the command may have covered both sides of the English Channel as well as Britain’s western coast, as Carausius’s position had, but by the end of the 4th century, the role had been diminished and Gaul had its own dux tractus Armoricani and dux Belgicae Secundae 1. In 367, a series of invasions from Picts, Franks, Saxons, Scots and Attacotti appears to have defeated the army of Britain and resulted in the death of Nectaridus 1. Under Count Theodosius’s reforms, the command was reorganized slightly. Although Ammianus speaks of a ‘conspiracy of the savages,’ he states that the Saxons and Francs attacked the Gallic (French) regions, while in Britain, the savages in question were only Picts, Scots and Attacotti 1. The 5th-century Notitia Dignitatum lists the names of the Saxon Shore forts from Norfolk to Hampshire that were under the Count’s command. Further stations up the North Sea coast were probably also his responsibility. Forces he controlled were classified as limitanei or frontier troops.

I don't think Carausius was part of the Saxon Shore defences (he was dead in 293) but he was definitely the commander of the Roman fleet in the English Channel protecting against raiders. He was accused of working with them to enrich himself, however, so he elevated himself to the purple.

As Chat GPT alludes, the Saxon Shore defences were likely built in response to the Great Conspiracy in 367, where several groups of barbarians simultaneously took advantage of a lack of soldiers in Britain. Magnus Maximus was a beneficiary but also ended up usurping.

Edited September 3, 2023 by John Conduitt

[Deinomenid]

On 9/3/2023 at 9:48 AM, John Conduitt said:

Had the Celts really moved from rural areas into cities, only to move back again when the cities became less defensible? Presumably, most of them never left, with villas and estates another way to continue to control and make money from them, along the lines of serfdom

There's an excellent recent book that covers this extensively, by Robin Fleimng,  Britain after Rome 400-1070. She's a little on the side of  continuity and very much focused on material resources/archeology rather than "big man" narrative  but  it's a well-written and thoughtful read, & at times poignantly sad.