Sub-Roman Britain

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (February 2022) This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (July 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The term "late antiquity", implying wider horizons, is finding more use in the academic community, especially when transformations of classical culture common throughout the post-Roman West are examined. The period may also be considered as part of the early Middle Ages, if continuity with the following periods is stressed. Popular (and some academic) works use a range of more dramatic names for the period: the Dark Ages, the Brythonic Age, the Age of Tyrants, or the Age of Arthur.^[2]

Written accounts

Little extant written material is available from this period, though a considerable amount from later periods may be relevant. A lot of what is available deals with the first few decades of the 5th century only. The sources can usefully be classified into British and continental, and into contemporary and non-contemporary.

Two primary contemporary British sources exist: the Confessio of

More continental contemporary sources mention Britain, though these are highly problematic. The most famous is the so-called Rescript of

After the Norman Conquest there were many books written that purport to give the history of the Sub-Roman period. These have been influenced by the fictionalised account in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain). Therefore, they can only be regarded as showing how the legends grew. Not until modern times have serious studies of the period been undertaken.

Later Lives of Celtic saints, although often unreliable, do provide some insights into life in Sub-Roman Britain. For example, there is a description of a dilapidated, but still occupied,

Archaeology provides further evidence for this period, in some cases suggesting that the depopulation of Roman towns and the development of villa and estate organization was already occurring in the 4th century.^[11]

The 5th and 6th centuries in Britain are marked by a sharp discontinuity in town life, with the exception of a few sites such as Londinium, Eboracum, Canterbury and Wroxeter,^[12] but the discontinuity in the episcopate also suggests a decline in town life.^[13]

The Roman villa system, represented by some five hundred archaeological sites, did not survive either; unlike Gaul, in Britain not a single villa name survived into the Germanic period. However, at Chedworth, building work continued: a mosaic within Room 28, discovered in 2020, was designed and created in the middle of the 5th century.^[14][15][16]

In the sub-Roman period, building in stone gradually came to an end; buildings were constructed of less durable materials than during the Roman period. However,

Although radiocarbon dating can provide a rough estimate, this is not accurate enough to associate archaeological finds with historical events. Dendrochronology depends on the presence of suitable pieces of wood. Coins are often the most useful tool for dating, but no newly minted coins are believed to have entered circulation in Britain after the very early 5th century.^[21]

There is archaeological evidence of Anglo-Saxons and Britons living on the same site. For example, in the cemetery at Wasperton, Warwickshire, one can see a family adopting Anglo-Saxon culture over a long period.^[22]

End of Roman rule

The proximate cause of the end of Roman rule in Britannia appears to have been a power-struggle between

Meanwhile, there were barbarian raids on Britain in 408, but these seem to have been defeated. After 410 Honorius apparently sent letters to the cities of Britain telling them to fend for themselves, though this is sometimes disputed.[27]^[28][29]

From the middle of the 5th century the Germanic raiders began to settle in the eastern river valleys.

Writing in Latin, perhaps about 540, Gildas gives an account of the history of Britain, but the earlier part (for which other sources are available) is severely muddled. He castigates five rulers in western Britain – Constantine of Dumnonia, Aurelius Caninus, Vortipor of the Demetae, Cuneglasus and Maglocunus (Mailcun or in later spelling Maelgwn of Gwynedd)  – for their sins. He also attacks the British clergy. He gives information on the British diet, dress and entertainment. He writes that Britons were killed, emigrated or enslaved but gives no idea of numbers.

In the late 6th century there was another period of Saxon expansion, starting with the capture of Searoburh in 552 by the dynasty that later ruled Wessex, and including entry into the Cotswolds area after the Battle of Deorham (577), though the accuracy of the entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for this period has been questioned. These conquests are often said by modern writers, on no clear evidence, to have separated the Britons of South West England (known later as the West Welsh) from those of Wales. (Just after the period being discussed, the Battle of Chester in 611 might have separated the latter from those of the north of England.) Until the 570s, Britons were still in control of about half of England and Wales.

Kingdoms

Various

• Bryneich – Northumberland; eventually taken by the Angles of Bernicia
• Dumnonia – south west England, Cornwall and much of Devon
• Dyfed – south west Wales
• Ergyng – south west Herefordshire, northern Monmouthshire and the Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire
• Gwent, Brycheiniog and Glywysing – south Wales
• Powys – mid Wales
• Gwynedd – north Wales
• Elmet – south west Yorkshire
• Rheged – Cumbria and Lancashire
• Ebrauc
   – around York and northern Yorkshire
• Strathclyde – (c. 900 – c. 1100) in south west Scotland, Cumberland, Westmorland
• Gododdin – centred on Traprain Law in Lothian

Some areas fell under the domination of Anglian or Saxon chieftains, later kingdoms:

• Bernicia – the Anglian kingdom of Bernicia before joining with Deira to become Northumbria
• Deira – the Anglian kingdom of Deira before joining with Bernicia to become Northumbria (East Yorkshire)
• Lindsey – the Anglian kingdom of Lindsey before joined with Northumbria and Mercia
• East Anglia
   – including Suffolk and Norfolk
• Kent
• Hwicce – most of Gloucestershire except the Forest of Dean and western Oxfordshire.
• Sussex – including the settlement of Haestingas, containing people of possibly Jutish origin
• Essex – including Middlesex and Surrey
• Wessex – formed from areas in the upper Thames Valley and later incorporating an area of Jutish settlement in the Meon Valley and around Southampton (including the Isle of Wight)
• Mercia – centred on Repton
• Middle Anglia
   – east Midlands, later joined with Mercia
• Northumbria – formed from Bernicia and Deira
• Wihtwara

Religion

Officially the

In 429, a British Deacon, Palladius, had requested support from the Pope in Rome to combat Pelagianism. Bishops Germanus and Lupus of Troyes were sent. Germanus, a former military commander, is reported to have led the British to the "Hallelujah" victory, possibly in Wales or Herefordshire. Germanus is said^[32][33] to have made a second visit to England later. Participation by a British bishop at a synod in Gaul demonstrates that at least some British churches were in full administrative and doctrinal touch with Gaul as late as 455.^[34]

In the north,

Linguistic evidence

Similarly, studies of place names give clues about the linguistic history of an area. England (except Cornwall and Cumbria) shows patchy evidence now of Celtic in its place names. There are scattered Celtic place names throughout, increasing towards the west. There are also Celtic river names and topographical names. An explanation of the toponymic and linguistic evidence is that Anglo-Saxon language and culture became dominant due to their political and social preeminence in the south and east of Britain. Names with a Latin element may suggest continuity of settlement, while some places are named for pagan Germanic deities. Names of British origin may or may not indicate survival of a British population. Names based on the Anglo-Saxon word for the British, wealh, are also taken as indicating British survival. An example is Walton, meaning settlement of the British^[42] and this name is found in many parts of England, though it sometimes means Wall-town.^[43]

Surviving inscriptions on stones provide another source of information on the settlements of Britons and the Anglo-Saxons. Celtic inscribed stones from this period occur in western England, Wales and southern Scotland. Inscriptions in parts of Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall, are in ogham, some containing forms which scholars have not been able to understand.

Extent of the migrations

Two contrasting models of the end of sub-Roman Britain have been described by

The traditional view has been partly deconstructed (considerably in some circles) since the 1990s, with a reduction in the numbers of Anglo-Saxons believed to have arrived in Britain. A lower figure is sometimes accepted, which would mean that it is highly unlikely that the existing British population was substantially displaced by the Anglo-Saxons.[47] If fewer Anglo-Saxons arrived, it is proposed that they formed a ruling elite, with acculturation of the local population. Thus some "Saxon" graves may be of Britons, though many scholars disagree.^{[48][49][50][51][52]}

Two genetic studies published in 2016, using data from ancient burials found in Cambridgeshire, Yorkshire and Durham, found that the ancestry of the modern-day English population contained substantial contributions from the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic peoples.^[53][54]

End of Roman Britain

Various dates have been proposed to mark the end of

There is some controversy as to why Roman rule ended in Britain. The view first advocated by Theodor Mommsen was that Rome left Britain.^[56] This argument was substantiated over time, most recently by A.S. Esmonde-Cleary.^[57] According to this argument, internal turmoil in the Roman Empire and the need to withdraw troops to fight off barbarian armies led Rome to abandon Britain. It was the collapse of the imperial system that led to the end of imperial rule in Britain. However, Michael Jones has advanced an alternative thesis that argues that Rome did not leave Britain, but that Britain left Rome.^[58] He highlights the numerous usurpers who came from Britain in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, and points out that the supply of coinage to Britain had dried up by the early 5th century, so that administrators and troops were not getting paid. All of this, he argues, led the British people to rebel against Rome. These arguments are open to criticism, and the question is still open.

It was a violent period, and there was probably widespread tension, alluded to in all the written sources. This may have led to the deaths of many Britons. There are also references to plagues. Laycock (Britannia the Failed State, 2008) suggests tribal conflict, possibly even starting before 410, may have sliced up much of Britain and helped destroy the economy. The evidence from land use suggests a decline in production, which might be a sign of population decline.^[59]

It is clear that some British people migrated to elsewhere in Europe, and

Non-Anglo-Saxon kingdoms began appearing in western Britain, and are first referred to in Gildas' De Excidio. To an extent these kingdoms may have derived from Roman structures.[64] But it is also clear that they drew on a strong influence from Hibernia, which was never part of the Roman Empire. Archaeology has helped further the study of these kingdoms, notably at sites like Tintagel or the hillfort at South Cadbury.

In the north there developed the British kingdoms of the

While pushed back politically and linguistically, British scholars and ecclesiastics had a significant impact on the Anglo-Saxon newcomers through literacy, ecclesiastical social constructs and historical memory of the Roman period in Britain, particularly after the Christianizing of the Anglo-Saxons. Coming from a fully oral cultural background, the Anglo-Saxons were heavily influenced by the more developed Christianized and literate culture of the Britons. British scholars were often employed at Anglo-Saxon courts to assist in the management of the kingdoms. This reintroduced British culture to those parts of Britain lost to the British politically. The epitome of this process is the adoption of the legendary British war leader, King Arthur, as the national hero of the English, due to the literary work of Welsh historians.

Environmental change effects

There is evidence for

Slaves were important in the economy and the army in the Roman Empire. Estimates for the prevalence of slavery in the Roman Empire vary: some estimate that around 30% of the population of the Empire in the 1st century was enslaved.[71] A more recent study suggests 10–15% even for the early empire "as any greater estimate would require implausible levels of transformation in a pre-modern context."^{[72]: 59–60} The difference the lower percentage ^{[clarification needed]} in the Later Roman Empire can be attributed to fewer slaves in sub-elite households and agricultural estates^[72]: 66 (replaced by a great expansion in various types of tenancy).^[72]: 64 The Germanic region was one of the main sources of slaves. It was mainly wholesale dealers, who followed the Roman armies, who sold slaves. After the Empire expanded, there were fewer places to obtain slaves. Around 210, piracy increased around the North Sea and boosted the supply, taken from villages in that area, along with those captured for ransom.

Britain was not easily defensible. It did not pay completely the costs of occupation. Nevertheless, the Romans were forced to keep three or four legions, 30,000 to 40,000 men with auxiliary units in place to defend it. They managed fairly well until the collapse of Roman authority after the garrison was reduced in size by Magnus Maximus in 388 and Stilicho in 401. It seems that after 350 the Roman government was having more difficulty in recruiting soldiers.

In an effort to remedy the situation it resorted to payment instead of provision of recruit, the aurum tironicum. Landowners could pay a set fee to prevent any of their tenants from being pressed into the army (slaves were rarely resorted to even at critical moments in exchange for their freedom).

After the Battle of Adrianople, the Gothic foederati, by the Treaty of 382, were allowed to remain with the Empire intact, which reversed the centuries-old Roman policy of destroying barbarian enemies by killing them all, selling them or incorporating them into the Roman army by scattering them across units. The hospitalitas system granted a third of the land (or fees) of a region to barbarians who had invaded and occupied those lands assigned to them. In return, these people declared loyalty to the Emperor and provided military support, whilst retaining their independence. If the theory is correct, Germanic peoples may have been resident in Britain before and after these reforms. One thing led to another to create a spiral.

The policy of substituting mercenaries who were paid in gold which should have gone to support the professional standing army and accommodation to their presence spelled the doom of the Western Empire. The federates, operating from within the boundaries of the Empire, eventually became the new landlords, as there was no professional Roman army to subdue them.

Ancient authors bitterly comment on this series of policy mistakes. The East which relied far less on mercenaries escaped Britain's fate. The Britons in the decades after 410 repeated the mistakes the emperors had done with the Visigoths, Burgundians, Sueves, Vandals, and Franks – they invited mercenaries to protect them, then those same mercenaries subsequently took control over Britain.

Plague of Justinian

The population of Britain may have decreased by between 1.5 and 3 million after the Roman period, perhaps caused by environmental changes (the

According to research led by University College London, Anglo-Saxon settlers could have enjoyed a substantial social and economic advantage over the native Celtic Britons^[76] who lived in what is now England, for more than 300 years from the middle of the 5th century.^[48][77][78] However, this scenario, assuming that the Anglo-Saxons were just Germanic Ingaevones, has been questioned.^{[79][80][81][82]}

Minor migrations theories

The traditional view about the numbers of Anglo-Saxons arriving in Britain during this period has been deconstructed. Incoming people uniting with the existing population could explain why the island conquest was as slow and incomplete as it was, and why the island was exposed to external attacks by Danish pirates and Normans, as well as other issues about the population composition.

Stephen Oppenheimer's theory

Notes