Reasons Behind the Great Conspiracy

[A. Flavius]

Hello all,

I'm trying to figure out a few knots in Late Roman Britain, many of which relate to its military, or to campaigns that took place during the time of the Great Conspiracy, obviously in Britain. I was wondering if anyone might be able to answer some of the following question?

1) What could possibly instigate such an alliance amongst the tribes? Could it have been a simple hatred of Rome (this appears most likely as the invasion forces degenerated into roving pillagers after the Roman forces in the diocese had been pushed back to the south east), or could it have been something else?

2) What were the military assets in Britain at the time? Despite pouring over the Notitia Dignitatum (ND) I'm no closer to gaining a view of what units may have been present in Britain at the time, or where they were station.


Trying to figure out the whats, whys and hows of Roman Britain about this time is more then a little difficult. Ammianus only list the Roman reaction to the invasion, namely the reconquest under Count Theodosius. Simply trying to figure out what types of Roman forces where in the diocese at the time is difficult.

Any help with the above would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Scott.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Without trying to derail your thread are we sure that there was any sort of alliance?

Was it just a series of raids close together in time which looked to the Romans like a conspiracy - or made a better story if portrayed as such?

To actually have a stab at your questions:

1) I rather suspect that it was just a series of plundering raids, possibly taking advantage of a perceived weakness in the British defenses due to imperial attention elsewhere.

2) I'd suggest that the ND should give you an idea of what could have been the defense force in Britain at the time - certainly I suspect that the defenses of Hadrian's Wall and the saxon Shore would have looked something like what is described there. However, given that Theodosius had to take "proper" palantine units to sort things out I would assume there was no sort of central army away from the frontiers - that bit of the ND (Dux Britanniarum IIRC) is made up of units duplicated elsewhere anyway.

[A. Flavius]

Hello Nicholas,

Thanks for replying!

1) All the sources seem to suggest at least some partial planning on behalf of the barbarians. Ammianus makes mention of the areani (informants) used by the Count of the Saxon Shore betraying their Roman paymasters and not forewarning the Romans of the impending attack. The Count was killed btw, during the attack, and the Duke was either killed or besieged in Northern England when his own forces rebelled and allowed the Picts to cross the Wall. There seems to be suggestion of cooperation between the two groups, but you're right in that I can't say definitively that there was a massive conspiracy.

2) So there was no Comitatus units in Roman Britain? It was all Limitatenis and Cavalry vexillations?

[D B Campbell]

1) All the sources seem to suggest at least some partial planning on behalf of the barbarians. Ammianus makes mention of the areani (informants) used by the Count of the Saxon Shore betraying their Roman paymasters and not forewarning the Romans of the impending attack. The Count was killed btw, during the attack, and the Duke was either killed or besieged in Northern England when his own forces rebelled and allowed the Picts to cross the Wall. There seems to be suggestion of cooperation between the two groups, but you're right in that I can't say definitively that there was a massive conspiracy.

You might be interested in Peter Salway's latest assessment of the matter (in [amazon]Roman Britain. A Very Short Introduction[/amazon], p. 59):
"The most remarkable feature was the concerted action of such disparate barbarians [viz. the Picts, Scots, and Attacotti attacking Britain, while Franks and Saxons attacked Gaul]. Treachery by native frontier scouts in the north is one attested part of the situation, but to account for the total operation we have to suppose an unknown barbarian with extraordinary military and diplomatic ability. ... What convinces one of inspired barbarian leadership is the fact of simultaneous attacks by peoples with very different cultures, from homelands relatively distant from one another, with a very clever division of targets -- and perhaps most of all, with the maintenance of complete secrecy. The Romans certainly called it a conspiracy, and it is difficult not to agree with them."

2) So there was no Comitatus units in Roman Britain? It was all Limitatenis and Cavalry vexillations?

The Dux Britanniarum was in command of the limitanei along Hadrian's Wall and the Pennine hinterland, and the legion at York. There was no field army; the Comes Britanniarum (or Britanniae) is a much later creation. Count Theodosius must have brought his own comitatenses for his campaign of AD 367.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Scott,

How do you mean 'all the sources'. Imho, only Ammianus Marcellinus describes this event.

Let's take a look at what he wrote:

8.1-3, 5:
1 Having set out then from Amiens and hastening to Treves, Valentinian was alarmed by serious news which showed that Britain was brought into a state of extreme need by a conspiracy of the savages, that Nectaridus, the commanding general of the seacoast region, had been killed, and that another general, Fullofaudes, had been ambushed by the enemy and taken prisoner.
2 This report aroused great horror, and the emperor sent Severus, who at that time was still commander of the household troops, to set right the disasters, if chance should offer the desired opportunity. But he was recalled a little later, and Jovinus . . . having set out for the same regions, allowed them to return at quick step, intending to seek the support of a strong army; for he declared that this was demanded by the pressing necessities of the situation.
3 Finally, because of the many alarming things which constant rumours reported about that same island, Theodosius, a man most favourably known for his services in war, was chosen to be sent there with all speed, and having enrolled legions and cohorts of courageous young men, he hastened to depart, preceded by brilliant expectations.
5 It will, however, be in place to say, that at that time the Picts, divided into two tribes, called Dicalydones and Verturiones, as well as the Attacotti, a warlike race of men, and the Scots, were ranging widely and causing great devastation; while the Gallic regions, wherever anyone could break in by land or by sea, were harassed by the Franks and their neighbours, the Saxons, with cruel robbery, fire, and the murder of all who were taken prisoners.

OK, seems serious enough, and it is clear that Britain was in some sort of severe crisis. Was Britain really attacked by a trifold alliance of its classic enemies, the Irish, the Picts and the Saxons? A conspiracy of the 'savages' is mentioned, but which ones? NOT the saxons! we always seem to forget that, but Ammianus does NOT include the saxons (or the Franks) in that alliance that attacks Britain, since hge clearly has these attack Gaul.

Curiously, this is Ammianus writes also:

4.5-6:
5 At this time, as if trumpets were sounding the war-note throughout the whole Roman world, the most savage peoples roused themselves and poured across the nearest frontiers. At the same time the Alamanni were devastating Gaul and Raetia, the Sarmatae and Quadi Pannonia, while the Picts, Saxons, Scots and Attacotti were harassing the Britons with constant disasters. The Austoriani and other Moorish tribes raided Africa more fiercely than ever and predatory bands of Goths were plundering Thrace and Pannonia.
6 The king of the Persians was laying hands on Armenia, hastening with mighty efforts to bring that country again under his sway, under the false pretext that after the death of Jovian, with whom he had concluded a treaty of peace, nothing ought to prevent his recovery of what he claimed had formerly belonged to his forefathers.

This seems to have happened after Jovian's death in 364. Curiously, Ammianus describes a seemingly cco-ordinated attack on the Empire by most of the known enemies, yet no-one has ever even dreamed of describing this as a conspiracy. Of course the haven't - the enormity alone would have made it impossible. So why are we so much more inclined to believe Ammianus, just because the scale of this one seems feasable?

Remember, like Tacitus with Agricola, Ammianus is praising someone in particular here; Theodosius the Elder in this case, father of the emperor under whom Ammianus is writing his books.
If you continue to read the story of 367, it is after some setbacks Theodosius who sets things strait, not as one would expect by slaughtering pirates or plunderers, but with some act aginst a traitor, whom some expert now even thing cause part of Britain to be named after him (the elusive province of Valentia). Was this a rebellion rather than a foreign invasion?

So what's really up here? Not, as we have seen, an alliance of Scots/Picts/Saxons who attack Britain at the same time, but a mentioning of 4 groups, two of whom attack Britain and 2 more who attack Gaul. Is this really a biog conspiracy attack? I think not. I think that Britain is under attack, but that Ammianus, as with the situation in 364, is describing a serious of events in 367 which he telescopes for the benefit of his Restitutor Britanniae, his hero, the Comes Theodosius.

[Robert Vermaat]

2) So there was no Comitatus units in Roman Britain? It was all Limitatenis and Cavalry vexillations?

When? If you are speaking of the period around 367, remember that the army in Britain may not even have been organised along the lines of Comitatenses vs. Limitanei.

We don't even know for sure which units were stationed in Britain in 367, only those we find in the Notitia Dignitatum and which we know from earlier inscriptions.

Only this, in addition to my earlier post - in the ND, britain strill has cohorts and alae. Some have therefore thought that the ND for Britain is hopelessly antiquated, because they see units like cohorts and alae as too old, and they say such units would have been wiped away in the event of 376.

But, like I said above, 367 may not have been a giant raid on Britain, it's so common to think that that people nowadays take it for granted.
Besides, the Danube frontier also has many cohorts and alae, and nobody seems to think that
a) that part of the ND is not up to date either, and no-one seems to think that
b) the units on the Danube were also supposedly all destroyed.

I see this as a confirmation that britain did not suffer a disaster in 367 that destroyed her military infrastructure, as is nontheless very often repeated without proof.

[A. Flavius]

Hello all,

Sorry it took me such a long time to respond.

"The most remarkable feature was the concerted action of such disparate barbarians [viz. the Picts, Scots, and Attacotti attacking Britain, while Franks and Saxons attacked Gaul]. Treachery by native frontier scouts in the north is one attested part of the situation, but to account for the total operation we have to suppose an unknown barbarian with extraordinary military and diplomatic ability. ... What convinces one of inspired barbarian leadership is the fact of simultaneous attacks by peoples with very different cultures, from homelands relatively distant from one another, with a very clever division of targets -- and perhaps most of all, with the maintenance of complete secrecy. The Romans certainly called it a conspiracy, and it is difficult not to agree with them."

The concerted effort of the barbarian tribes in attacking Britain would, at least in my mind and those of the Romans, suggest some sort of 'conspiracy' (and I use the term lightly) amongst the tribes that did invade. The simultaneous attacks carried out over such a short period against Britain would at least suggest a modicum of cooperation between the tribes in attacking. Just how detailed or developed this alliance was remains a mystery. Shortly after Roman authority in the region had collapsed the tribes, from memory, turned to seemingly random looting and plundering. This would suggest that they had no long term goal to say occupy Britain, but simply raided on a large scale. It still doesn't seem possible to rule out cooperation altogether.

How do you mean 'all the sources'. Imho, only Ammianus Marcellinus describes this event.

Let's take a look at what he wrote.

True enough, Ammianus is the primary source I was referring to. Drawing on what you've quoted it would seem plausible that the Saxons did raid Britain during the period in question.

Nectaridus, the count of the coastal region, had been killed, and the general Fullofaudes surprised and cut off.

Considering that Nectaridus was the Saxon Count at the time of the invasion and he died, it would at the very least be a reasonable inference that he was killed during the invasion. Considering the region over which he held sway it wouldn't be unreasonable to presume he was killed in a Saxon raid. However due to the fact that Theodosius landed at Richborough, apparently uncontested, it would suggest that the south east of Britain was able to hold out against the raids. Further suggesting that whilst the Saxons may have raided Britain, they weren't very successful at it.

Furthermore the capture of Fullofaudes would suggest that Hadrian's Wall had been breeched. Considering he was eventually replaced as Dux, it's unclear if Fullofaudes survived the invasion or was discharged.

As to whether or not the attacks were that serious I would again quote Ammianus.

After setting out from Amiens on a rapid march to Trier, Valentinian was shocked to receive the serious news that a concerted attack by the barbarians had reduced to province of Britain to the verge of ruin.

(I'm using a Penguin translation by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill and Walter Hamilton that omits Ammianus' musings on local peoples, places and natural events in favor of focusing on the history he details. If you think any of these omissions are helpful, feel free to post them).

Considering the very nature of Valentinian I, he does no seem like someone who would shock easily.

Valentinian was generally know to be a cruel man, but at the beginning of his reign he strove to modify his reputation for harshness by taking some pains to control his savage impulses. But this insidious vice grew on him though its appearance was deferred, and gradually broke out without restraint to the destruction of several persons; it gained strength from his liability to passionate outbursts of anger.

Valentinian is well known as a soldier emperor. At the time in question he was campaigning against the Alemanni. But look at what Ammianus says. The emperor is 'shocked', 'the province is on the verge of ruin', a 'concerted attacked by the barbarians'. This was obviously a serious matter for Rome, demanding the emperor send his best in the eventual form of Count Theodosius.

Was this a rebellion rather than a foreign invasion?

The attempted rebellion of Valentinus is only mentioned after Theodosius has taken to pacifying Britain. Considering the speed with which Theodosius acted, and the reasoning giving by Ammianus for his harsh reprisal;

But his preeminent skill in military matters led him, with an eye to the future, to forbid further inquiry into the conspiracy. He was afraid that by spreading alarm among a large number he might reawaken the troubles in the provinces that had been laid to rest.

It becomes obvious that Valentinus attempted to instigate and take advantage of the chaos in the wake of Theodosius' reconquest of Britain.

So far as I can tell Ammianus provided ample evidence for the suggestion of a concerted attack against Roman Britain, and that this attack was powerful enough to slip by Roman intelligence in the region and defeat a large number of frontier garrisons. However I will not dispute the fact that the invasion appears to have run out of steam after Roman resistance crumbled.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Valentinian is well known as a soldier emperor. At the time in question he was campaigning against the Alemanni. But look at what Ammianus says. The emperor is 'shocked', 'the province is on the verge of ruin', a 'concerted attacked by the barbarians'. This was obviously a serious matter for Rome, demanding the emperor send his best in the eventual form of Count Theodosius.

But we really do have to be careful about this. Ammianus was writing in the time when Theodosius' son was emperor - it just wouldn't do to say that his father had been sent to sort out a little local disturbance, the majesty of the emperor really demands that his father was fighting against forces that threatened at least part of the empire with disaster. Remember as well that imperila ideology demanded that giving barbarians "a good kicking" was an important part of showing you were a good emperor, and if your family had good pedigree in this all the better.

As for the scale of the trouble how many palatine units were needed? Four if I recall, hardly a major force.

I think we can reasonably assume that Ammianus talked this up to some degree 8)

[A. Flavius]

Hello,

I think we can reasonably assume that Ammianus talked this up to some degree.

Talked up or not the two military commanders of Britain, the Duke and Count, were either killed or incapacitated for the duration of the attack. Add to that the civilian Vicarius had to be replaced. Ammianus even records Roman troops deserting. All of this took place in less then a year, a major administrative and military upheaval if the attack was not that important.

As for the scale of the trouble how many palatine units were needed? Four if I recall, hardly a major force.

That could depend on anything from how many troops Theodosius felt the need for to how many could actually be spared for the relief. Lets not forget that at this point Valentinian was battling with the Alemanni in Gaul. It could simply have been a matter of Theodosius being unable to attain more troops. He was forced, once in the diocese, to issue a amnesty to recall deserted troops to the banner.

Simply because Ammianus wrote under Theodosius shouldn't discount anything he has to say about the emperor's father. Ammianus proves in his recount of Julian's reign that he's more then willing to be critical of an emperor he admires.

Cheers,

Scott.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

As for the scale of the trouble how many palatine units were needed? Four if I recall, hardly a major force.

That could depend on anything from how many troops Theodosius felt the need for to how many could actually be spared for the relief. Lets not forget that at this point Valentinian was battling with the Alemanni in Gaul. It could simply have been a matter of Theodosius being unable to attain more troops. He was forced, once in the diocese, to issue a amnesty to recall deserted troops to the banner.

As far as I can see Theodosius had no real difficulty restoring order which suggests the troops he took were more than adequate. I don't see amnesties for deserters as being too unusual.

Simply because Ammianus wrote under Theodosius shouldn't discount anything he has to say about the emperor's father. Ammianus proves in his recount of Julian's reign that he's more then willing to be critical of an emperor he admires.

Who was dead, his decendants weren't on the throne and was a pagan and Ammianus wrote under a strongly christian emperor. He wasn't that critical either :lol:

But seriously I'm not suggesting we should discount what he is saying, just that like all writing of the period (and any period to be honest) we have to be aware of the situation under which the piece was written, literary styles in vogue and other such factors when assessing what is said. We should just be aware of context.

[Robert Vermaat]

I'm more with Nik here.

The situation seems critical, yet it takesd a lot of time to respond, and even then the situation is swiftly restored. if, as some suppose, all the northern units were displaced, had rebelled or were destroyed, it would have taken years to rebuild the military infrasctructure.

I am not for inferring that the Saxons played a part. that's a popular misconception that is NOT going back on the source. AM is writing detail, and he does not include the Saxons in this crisis in Britain. We can infer of course what we wnat, but there is no proof for that in this particular case.

Frankly, this all sounds more like a rebellion to me, in which a commander was killed (by whom?) and another neutralised (we even are left to guesss who he commanded). There evidently is a rebel, and I disagree that the text supports that he rebelled only after Theodosius landed. he might of course have had cause to rebel due to Picts overrunning the north, i can't tell that either, or maybe he used the Picts and Scots to rebel in the first place (to neutralise the other commanders?). But that's me iferring all of that.

But I say again, to me this text does not support a big barbarian attack, despuite AM's words not even a conspiracy, and not at all the modern inclsion 'of habit' of the Saxons in the turmoil in Britain.