Roman \"Abandonment\" of Britain: Fact or Fiction?

[Alanus]

Roman was more or less "abandoned" by Rome in 410 AD, the Emperor, Honorius told them they should seek to their own defenses. Though Britain had been in bad shape for sometime, at least enough for them to elect their own "Emperor" to usurp Honorius in 407, which failed. Romans had lost control of a considerable portion of Britain by 383AD

There is a difference between "abandoning" Britain and stating that you-- the enfeebled Emperor-- can't aid them. Whatever they "lost" in 383, they gained back. At least 5 detachments were sent into Britain around 396, most of them cavalry.

The usurper was Constantine III, actually a third choice. Two years later, in 409, the Britons kicked his officials out-- which signals they were still loyaly a part of the Western empire. So was Britanny. Around 430, the Emperor assigned King Eothar and his Alans to crush a fracus in Little Britain. He was met upon the road by Bishop Germanus and no blood was spilled. This action also shows the Britons were still part of the Empire.

Next we have Emperor Anthemius begging the Briton's general Riothamus to help him stop the Gothic King Euric from taking land north of the Kingdom of Toulouse in Gaul. This was in 469-470, and it was described incorrectly on the RAT thread "5th Century Roman Timeline." You wouldn't ask Britons for aid if they were an independent country no longer tied to the Empire.

Perhaps you are thinking of the movie "The Last Legion" in which Romulus goes to Britain after being usurped in 476?

"The Last Legion" was fantasy, and none too good. The flick had Merlin telling us that Excalibur was forged by a "Chalybean" who evidently migrated from the Black Sea to downtown London. If there ever was a recall of standards, it probably did happen in 476. But as far as I know there is no concrete proof. We certainly know Britain was still a province in 470 with Britons fighting for Rome against the Visigoths.