04-28-2010, 07:19 AM
Hi Nathan,
One side of the discussion has been about a revolt against Roman rule in general. Especially the part about the Gallic provinces made for analogies with the bacaudae, and has given rise to theories about bacaudic uprisings in Britain, although there is no positive evidence for that in the sources. But since we know of bacaudae in Gaul during that time, especially in Armorica, the discussion keeps coming back to that. It was a topic taken up in the Middle Ages as well, with authors like Geoffrey of Monmouth who saw this as some move towards independence.
The other side of the coin has been a theory about a revolt against the administration of Constantine III, who was at that time busy with his designs on Rome, Spain and southern Gaul. Of course, that’s also speculation.
I think we can agree that this passage hints at troubles in Britain, something agreed on by other sources (albeit without any detail) that warranted military action by the locals. Whether the civitates organized this action, or the administration we don’t know, but I still don’t see citizens with pitchforks, or already rearmed tribes defending the beaches. If that had been the case it would mean that Britain was totally a-typical when compared to other parts of the Western empire at the time. In my opinion it would have been more logical to see this events (events) as leading up to the hiring of foreign troops, the common practice in the rest of the Empire, which we see in Gallic history and British pseudo-history (Vortigern).
Quote: It sounds more like a successful British revolution against Roman control - surely the sort of idea that would have gained popular currency long ago?It did, and it’s been discussed to death since. Gildas also hints at a revolt against Rome, but he never presents more details.
One side of the discussion has been about a revolt against Roman rule in general. Especially the part about the Gallic provinces made for analogies with the bacaudae, and has given rise to theories about bacaudic uprisings in Britain, although there is no positive evidence for that in the sources. But since we know of bacaudae in Gaul during that time, especially in Armorica, the discussion keeps coming back to that. It was a topic taken up in the Middle Ages as well, with authors like Geoffrey of Monmouth who saw this as some move towards independence.
The other side of the coin has been a theory about a revolt against the administration of Constantine III, who was at that time busy with his designs on Rome, Spain and southern Gaul. Of course, that’s also speculation.
I think we can agree that this passage hints at troubles in Britain, something agreed on by other sources (albeit without any detail) that warranted military action by the locals. Whether the civitates organized this action, or the administration we don’t know, but I still don’t see citizens with pitchforks, or already rearmed tribes defending the beaches. If that had been the case it would mean that Britain was totally a-typical when compared to other parts of the Western empire at the time. In my opinion it would have been more logical to see this events (events) as leading up to the hiring of foreign troops, the common practice in the rest of the Empire, which we see in Gallic history and British pseudo-history (Vortigern).
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
