Questions on Constantius, Constantine and the Northern British Tribes

[Gwawrddur]

Question to your contributors;

To what extent were the northen British tribes enemies to, or allies with, or assimilated into the ranks of the forces of Constantius?

Constantine fled from Galerius to Britain, but to what extent did they muster the forces of British tribe conscripts and is there any evidence that Constantine regarded these as allies, or were they mere 'foot soldiers'?

[Robert Vermaat]

We don't know. There are no sources describing details of any tribal British reinforcements for either Constantius or Constantine.

Btw, what do you mean by 'Northern British tribes'? Those immediately north of the Wall?

[Gwawrddur]

Thankyou Mr Vermaat.

In answer to your question; from York to the Antonine wall.

I realise there is a lack of satisfying data in this regard, but I think we can determine that there was not the same degree of direct Roman administration in the Traprain Law as there was in York.

[Robert Vermaat]

I was confused by your use of the word 'tribes'. From York to Hadrian's wall there would be no 'British tribes', just 'British Roman citizens'. And they would be no enemies to Constantine, nor assimilate with his forces other than as the recruits and volunteers normally raised for the army.

As to all beyond the border, like I said earlier, we have no information about their involvement.

[Gwawrddur]

Are you suggesting that the previously recorded tribes had suddenly ceased to exist? What evidence is there for this?

Slaves and freedmen were not automatically granted citizenship and concepts such as the Latin Right granted to soci only to a limited extent. The need for taxation referred to by Cassio Dio gives some idea of the progression of this in terms of its social/political/civic use.

  'And they would be no enemies to Constantine, nor assimilate with his forces other than as the recruits and volunteers normally raised for the army.'
Such a view (your former statement) cannot be stated with any certainty and the weight of evidence gives a more mixed picture.
Eusebius does not claim to be an historian and admits as such but there is no reason to doubt his statement on Constantines need to subdue the troublesome British.
I tend to agree with your latter comment. There is no recorded British equivalent to Chlorus which would suggest an indication of British status in the ranks.

[Robert Vermaat]

Are you suggesting that the previously recorded tribes had suddenly ceased to exist?

No. After the occupation the tribes became citizens. The civitates show the extent of the former tribes, but you can, after a certain amount of time, no longer speak of 'tribes'. Their tribal hierarchy is gone (no more kings), thei religious hierarchy is gone (no more druids), their military hierarchy is gone (no more tribal warriors). What's left is the landowners, and this changed rapidly under Roman influence.

By the time of Constantine, even though you might speak of the 'people of the civitas of the Dobunni', this is in all respect very different from the 'PRIA tribe of the Dobunni'. No more tribes.

Such a view (your former statement) cannot be stated with any certainty and the weight of evidence gives a more mixed picture.

What evidence is that? Not sure what you are referring to.
If you mean that statement about assimilations etc., well, we have no information about the British citizens being adverse to Constantine (to the contrary I would say) and als we also dont know if his elevation caused many to volunteer for the army.
Nor, I'll repeat, do we know if the tribes outside the Empire took service with Contantine's army.

Eusebius does not claim to be an historian and admits as such but there is no reason to doubt his statement on Constantines need to subdue the troublesome British.

Exactly. Many authors use figures of speech such as 'the troublesome British', leaving their readers to determine which group they are referring to! Either marauding provincials, rebellious British legions, Irish pirates, Scottinsh raiders or unsubdued Britons, all have been dyed with the 'colour of woad' by Roman poets and writers when referring to 'happenings in far-off Britain'.
By no means can we conclude from such sentences that the British provincials were trbal hotheads, still un-Romanized and troublesome.

[Gwawrddur]

Are you suggesting that the previously recorded tribes had suddenly ceased to exist?

No. After the occupation the tribes became citizens.

You seem to be asserting that the existence of the civitates implies a level of assimilation which both the archeological and textual evidence does not support.

 The civitates show the extent of the former tribes, but you can, after a certain amount of time, no longer speak of 'tribes'.

Their tribal hierarchy is gone (no more kings), thei religious hierarchy is gone (no more druids), their military hierarchy is gone (no more tribal warriors). What's left is the landowners, and this changed rapidly under Roman influence.

Incorrect - there is no evidence to suggest that tribal hierarchy vanished. Had tribal hierarchy vanished Eusibius would not have referred to British revolt.

---

The non existence of a priestly class indicates the dimunition of status in a conflict or a supremacy of a party in a contested status not the absence of the practice of a religion. British influence at this time (209+) stood in the ascendancy over Rome. Britons and Romans were not fully Christianised but there was a continuity of pagan practices during this time and post Christianity.

---

The existence of a wall indicates that tribal warriors had not disappeared. The conscription of soldiers into the army is no more an indication of Romanisation than the foederati ceased to be Saxon.

[Gwawrddur]

Robert Vermaat

Exactly. Many authors use figures of speech such as 'the troublesome British', leaving their readers to determine which group they are referring to! Either marauding provincials, rebellious British legions, Irish pirates, Scottinsh raiders or unsubdued Britons, all have been dyed with the 'colour of woad' by Roman poets and writers when referring to 'happenings in far-off Britain'.
By no means can we conclude from such sentences that the British provincials were trbal hotheads, still un-Romanized and troublesome.

Eusebius does not refer to 'Romanised' Britons or tribal 'hotheads'.
He does not refer to the insurrection of a legionnary division.
The Romans were quite aware of tribal differences and had mapped them. There is no record or archeological evidence that a tribal identity amongst the Britons had ceased to exist. The Romans were well aware not of the different tribes of Britons but had managed and were managing distinct and seperate polities.

---

Eusebius was not referring to 'far off Britain' Constantius and Constantine were in Britain and Eusebius was a biographer of Constantine.

---

The wall, coupled with the archeological evidence of which sites and scale of building had taken place (including duration of occupation) provide a good indication of this. The finds of Constantine coins at Traprain law give some indication of the status and trade but not of Romanisation.

[Gwawrddur]

I dont think its an overestimation to say that later Britons regarded Constantine with respect and liking but in this regard there would have to be some analysis given to tribal>region.
I would be more confident of the universality of the civitas argument if we had a massive library of British latin text ala Gildas. (and Gildas is critical of Rome as he is critical of Britons). Of course there could have been a library destroyed by Saxons (but no mention) and we know libraries were destroyed various times in history, but regardless, the lack of substantial 5th century Roman military artefacts would imply the gloss of an administration rather than the creation of a strong Roman state.

[Robert Vermaat]

I think you are reading a lot into Eusebius' very short reference. You seem to know what he was and what he wasn't referring to. But so far I don't read anything that should convince me of that.
My position is that we ca't tell what or who Eusebius was referring to. His lack of details prevents that. If Constantine needed to 'subdue the troublesome British' that is far more likely to refer to raiding tribes from North of the Wall, especially because from later genealogies it seems that everybody quite liked Constantine and his wife - sanctified them, even.

The use of the word 'British'is no proof for 'British tribes' whatsoever. The Romans continued to use tribal names as much as we do so for the names of regions. The names of the Batavian tribe continues to survive here as part of the province of Gelderland. yet no-one would even think of considering that the old tribe itself survived the centuries.
If people know they come from a certain region that does not mean they are a 'tribe'. Regional differentiality is something altogether different than a tribal structure. Ask any sociologist.
If the tribes survived, please point out evidence how their hierarchy of kings, priest and warriors survived? They just 'posed' as Romano-British for 300 years?

One sentence of Eusebius does not make for a late Roman tribal structure in Roman Britain.

[Nathan Ross]

There are a couple of minor references to the campaign of AD305-6 conducted by Constantius against the northern British peoples. The orator of Panegric VI mentions the emperor's 'final expedition' to Britain, during which Constantius encountered 'the forests and swamps of the Caledonians and other Picts' (7.1-2), and claims he 'approached the very threshold of the earth' The excerpta valesiana also says that Constantius "after winning a victory over the Picts, died at York" (2.4).

This could be oratorical hyperbole, but the find of a gold officer's brooch inscribed for the vicennalia of Diocletian beside a Roman road north of Hadrian's Wall might suggest that there was a military campaign into the north at this time. Constantius appears to have claimed a new Britannicus Maximus title some time shortly before January of 306. The emperor's death at York the following summer suggests that the trouble was ongoing.

Previously to this, Constantius had defeated Allectus, who was holding Britain. To what extent the British population supported the 'usurper' is unknown - the panegyrics suggest that Allectus had imported large numbers of Frankish mercenaries, and the people were glad to be rid of them!

Zosimus (New History, book 2) claims that in AD312 Constantine "raised an army amongst the Barbarians, Germans, and Celts, whom he had conquered, and likewise [drew] a force out of Britain" for his Italian campaign against Maxentius. This may be exaggeration - the legions of the Rhine frontier and Britain had been recruiting locally for centuries, but quite possibly large bodies of irregular 'barbarian' troops were also enlisted. Whether any of them were Britons from outside the empire is unknown. The Notitia Dignitatum mentions an auxilia unit of Attecotti (from Ireland?), but is short on other British auxiliary units.

Most likely, recruits from inside the Roman frontier in Britain were enlisted in one or other of the British legions or cohorts, as they had been for a very long time beforehand. The only new unit appearing in the ND is the cohors primae Cornoviorum, based on Hadrian's Wall in the 4th-5th century.

One problem with determining 'tribal' structures in the later west is the habit, originating in the later 3rd century, of renaming areas or cities after the local pagus; these bore the names of ancient tribes, although they were administrative districts. So Dorocortorum (Reims) was renamed Remi or Remis, after the ancient tribe of the Remi. Whether anyone in that area of Roman Gaul would still have identified as a member of the Remi is unclear! The situation may have been similar in areas of Britain: the Cornovii, and mentions of the Carvetii on 3rd-4th century milestones, may have related to this sort of pagus organisation.

[Gwawrddur]

Robert Vermaat



If the tribes survived, please point out evidence how their hierarchy of kings, priest and warriors survived? They just 'posed' as Romano-British for 300 years?'





What is 'Romano British'?




How many British read and spoke latin?

How many British are recorded as holding high rank in the military or Roman institutions?

What evidence is there that a British populace became educated in Roman schools? This would imply that Britons were able to rise within the Roman administration. Evidence?

sources please





Had the populace been 'Romanised' we would expect to see a population, for example, of Roman names - especially continuing post Roman departure . We do not. Gildas is quite clear when he refers to Ambrosius as the almost alone among his kind. Gildas refers to him as a "Roman".



Eusebius refers to the British nations - plural - not the British as one amorphous mass.

---

So much later we have:

' He was a man of unassuming character, who, alone of the Roman race chanced to survive in the shock of such a storm (as his parents, people undoubtedly clad in the purple, had been killed in it), whose offspring in our days have greatly degenerated from their ancestral nobleness. To these men, by the Lord's favour, there came victory.'

---

ie; the Romans are considered a seperate race.

'The names of the Batavian tribe continues to survive here as part of the province of Gelderland. yet no-one would even think of considering that the old tribe itself survived the centuries. '

They are not British where tribal identity was never static. You should take the transitional/time element into account. We are not talking about 1000 years. There is a big difference between early Rome and post Constantine Rome but would you suggest that Rome ceased to be Rome because it changed from pagan Rome to Christian Rome?

[Gwawrddur]

'One problem with determining 'tribal' structures in the later west is the habit, originating in the later 3rd century, of renaming areas or cities after the local pagus; these bore the names of ancient tribes, although they were administrative districts. So Dorocortorum (Reims) was renamed Remi or Remis, after the ancient tribe of the Remi. Whether anyone in that area of Roman Gaul would still have identified as a member of the Remi is unclear! The situation may have been similar in areas of Britain: the Cornovii, and mentions of the Carvetii on 3rd-4th century milestones, may have related to this sort of pagus organisation.'

These areas where named after the people who inhabited them. The Romans of course did not invent these names, they communicated with those people and recorded the name of the tribe. The tribe had sons who had sons etc who passed on names, customs, rituals etc.
These do not disappear any more than Aboriginal customs or native American customs disappear with the advent of European

---

Though Corbridge was a significant development I also think it is significant that there was a lack of Roman villa development in the surrounding hinterland. Many, though by no means all settlements grew out of already existing iron age settlements.

[Gwawrddur]

The Romans killed those who resisted, they often raped and murdered, but Bouddicas revolt was the exception rather than the rule. For this reason the 'cultural assimilation/romanisation' model would only have resonance for elites - is there much evidence that Romans even bothered with farmers and rural communities other than to supply pig meat to the troops?

btw I am not basing my view on 'one line from Eusebius' Eusebius is fairly clear that Constantius was being taught by the British at the time and we can therefore establish that debate was prevalent.

[Nathan Ross]

I am not basing my view on 'one line from Eusebius' Eusebius is fairly clear that Constantius was being taught by the British at the time and we can therefore establish that debate was prevalent.

To which lines of Eusebius are you referring? I'm assuming you mean Vita Constantini I.8: "he carried his arms as far as the Britons, and the nations that dwell in the very bosom of the Western ocean" and I.26: "he directed his attention to other quarters of the world, and first passed over to the British nations, which lie in the very bosom of the ocean. These he reduced to submission..."

Both of these discuss the exploits of Constantine, not his father. I would guess that the 'British nations' Eusebius refers to here are those same 'Caledonians and other Picts' mentioned by the panegryricist, rather than those peoples dwelling inside the Roman province. But Eusebius, a churchman from Caesarea, could not be expected, perhaps, to know more than the barest essentials of the political or social organisation of northern Britain!

These areas where named after the people who inhabited them... I also think it is significant that there was a lack of Roman villa development in the surrounding hinterland.

Yes, I believe the northernmost villa currently known is at Old Durham, and that features a 4th century bathhouse. Quarry Farm villa, at Ingleby Barwick, was occupied into the 6th or even 7th century, with evidence of high status occupants (gold brooches, glassware and ceramics, even an Egyptian glass polychrome dish). Who might have occupied these villas, though, is unknown: members of the military or administrative elite, or the 'Romanised' British elite? There certainly doesn't seem to have been a network of large villa estates, as there was in the south.

I haven't read Russell & Laycock's UnRoman Britain, which I think argues for the continuance of pre-Roman British society throughout the Roman era and beyond. I do think that 'Romanisation' is better seen as a spectrum than as a hard and fast distinction though: after the Antonine Constitution, all free inhabitants of the province would have been Roman citizens, and taken (at least legally) Roman names, but, as you say, the majority of the population, especially in the north, would probably have continued to live much as they had done before.

There are signs of change, though, and the apparent institution of the administrative civitatus or pagus is one of them, besides the change (in some areas) from native British roundhouses to rectangular buildings, and the spread of Roman coinage and domestic goods. As Harding (The Iron Age in Northern Britain) says, the polarisation of 'Roman' and 'native' in Britain (cf Richmond 1958) 'is now rightly regarded as obsolete'. The people of northern Britannia would have been added to the census, would have paid taxes and provided supplies and recruits for army. To what extent they would have regarded Roman culture or society (in its basic from) as 'alien' after several hundred years of occupation is unknowable, but perhaps they would not have regarded it as such.

Northern Britain, most particularly, was a heavily militarised zone, with a network of forts, roads and military installations maintained until very late in the Roman era, and in some cases far beyond it. As the civilian population was forbidden to bear arms, I would think the continuance of a 'native' tribal elite based on a warrior class highly unlikely (and nor, I think, is there any material evidence for one). There were no centres of study or learning in Britain, as there were in Gaul, and Britain does not seem to have produced any known senators or high-ranking military figures (although they may be disguised by their Roman names, of course). Whatever civilian administration persisted in the countryside, perhaps based on native tribal structures, the only real power in the land was the Roman army.

I tend to agree with Rob Collins (Hadrian's Wall and the End of Empire) that it was the army, rather than any remaining native infrastructure, that retained power in northern Britain into the end of the western empire. "The regionalisation of the late limitanei," he says (p.110), "occuring the last 30-50 years of the 4th century, increases the likelihood that the late Roman frontier units became the de facto warbands of the 5th century... The military occupation of the frontier does not seem to have come to a clear end."