Rescript of Honorius

[Robert Vermaat]

Birley argues very understandably that BOOK VI, 10 did not refer to Britain, but to the Italian provinces of Bruttium- which certainly makes sense from the contect.

And I agree to that. Too long has this passage been seen as 'final evidence' of the end of Roman rule in Britain. Other sources such as Gildas have been linked to this passage, cemeting it in place as pure fact.

Having said that, there are views from other sources, both pro and contra:

The Narratio (c. 450) placed the demise of Britain in the reign of Honorius:

Britain was forever removed from the Roman name.

Procopius (mid-6th c.) also was of the opinion that the loss of Britain took place close to the death of Constantine III:

Bellum Vandalicum 3.2.38
Alaric died of disease, and the army of the Visigoths ... marched into Gaul, and Constantine, defeated in battle by Honorius, died with his sons. However the Romans never succeeded in recovering Britain, but it remained from that time on under tyrants.

Two Gallic chroniclers placed the final demise of Britain in mid-century, but only one of them mentioned a major event in Britain c. 410:

Chronica Gallia a CCCCLII (AD 452):

Honorius, XVI (AD 409 or 410):
Britanniae Saxonum incursione davastatae.
The Britains were devastated by an incursion of the Saxons.

Chronica Gallia a CCCCLII (AD 452):

Theodosius, XVIII-XVIIII (AD 441)
Britanniae usque ad hoc tempus variis cladibus eventibusque latae in dicionem Saxonum rediguntur.
The Britains, which to this time had suffered from various disasters and misfortunes, are reduced to the power of the Saxons.

Chronica Gallia a DXI (AD 511):

Theodosius, Valentinianus XVI (AD 440)
Britanniae a Romanis amissae in dicionem Saxonum cedunt.
The Britains, lost to the Romans, yield to the power of the Saxons.

So it's not at all clear where we stand, even without Zosimus. :wink:

However, Britons (and "some of the Celtic peoples"- an interesting differentiator- meaning Western Britain? Country people less affected by the towns?) clearly didn't wait for Imperial permission - good for them!

Not necessarily so. Other contemporary sources refer to both Gaul and Britain as 'Celtic', so there's no real need to look for any details here. No doubt this is that age-old way of writers to hark back to anachronistic names and descriptions. Although, as we know from Sidonius, not a few provincials spoke Celtic as their first language.