King Arthur, page 4
However there are a number of problems with the theory Riothamus is the basis for Arthur. Firstly the phrase ‘by way of the ocean’ could easily mean from modern Brittany down the coast to the Loire river. The text says, ‘to the state of the Bituriges’, which is in exactly the area mentioned by both Gregory and Jordanes and accessible from the Loire. Plus we have the added difficulty in there is no record of this Riotimus either before or after, and no proof that this wasn’t a Latinised version of his name rather than a title. Even if it was a title, and the force of 12,000 did come from Britain, then we would still be left to prove that he was called Arthur. Then there is the fact that the only record of him is a defeat by the Goths. There is simply no evidence of any connection to the legend.
Possible routes for army of Riothamus.
A Romanised administration persisted in Gaul in the fifth century,6 and in 476 Odoacer deposed the last western emperor and sent the imperial regalia to Constantinople. Many date the fall of the Western Empire to this date. Clovis I became king of the Franks aged 15 in 481 and conquered Soissons, killing the ‘last king of the Romans’ in 487 before going on to defeat the Alemanni, Visigoths and Burgundians to control Gaul.
Clovis was then offered the consulship by the eastern emperor around 508. This means that Armorica, with it’s many links to Britain, initially bordered the last Roman rump state in Gaul up to 487, and then subsequently a dominant Frankia. Given Geoffrey of Monmouth’s narrative of Arthur being crowned at 15, invading Gaul and defeating the king of the Romans, this may be important. We will examine this in more detail later, but if there is any substance to it, then we have a few windows of opportunities for any significant military activity from Britain: The Romano-Saxon war of the 460s, Riothamus defeat by the Visigoths around 471, in the Frankish war with Soissons in 487 or in later border wars with the Franks from after that time.
In summary, a large influx of barbarian tribes together with civil war at the start of the fifth century caused major unrest in Gaul and the isolation of Britain from the Empire. The first half of the century involved Rome fighting against, and with, various tribes across Gaul and eventually resettling and making alliances. The second half of the century involved a rapid weakening of Roman power, and wars between Saxons, Bretons, Franks, Goths and Romans. The last Roman emperor was deposed in 476, but a rump Roman state survived until 488 as the Franks emerged as the dominant force in Gaul. During this time we have no evidence from Britain, except this tentative reference to a King Riotimus around 471. There is certainly no reference to anyone called Arthur. No letters from Popes, no Roman records, nothing from Gregory of Tours or Jordanes from the Franks or Goths.
North western Gaul in the late fifth century.
We do have contemporary accounts referring to Britain, and also accounts from Britain. The first was written around 480 in Gaul concerning a visit by Germanus of Auxerre in 429, followed by a possible second visit a few years later. The second is the writings of St Patrick, whose floruit is debated with his death dated to either 462 or 493, although this tells us next to nothing about Britain. Lastly we have Gildas writing in approximately 540 who tells us quite a lot as we shall see. Frustratingly for the period we are interested in either side of 500, we have no contemporary sources about Britain. We do have a number of contemporary sources covering this period from other parts of the Roman world however, and it is on this we will focus next.
Chapter 3
Contemporary Sources
The first two chapters have painted a very brief picture of the events leading up to, and just after, the fall of Roman Britain. Below is a list of all the contemporary historical sources1 that refer to Britain and the year in which they were written. It is worth noting that none mention any Arthur, any more than throughout Roman occupied Britain. Nor is there evidence of legends or myths from any source which even hint at the Arthurian legend at this point.
Table 3
List of contemporary sources referring to Britain:
393 AD Ammianus Marcellinus, (Res Gestae Divi Augustae):
Describes a prosperous province supplying grain to Gaul in the 4th century.
The incursion and subjugation of Picts and Scots in 360
402 AD Claudus Claudianus wrote a number of poems referring to the General Stilicho and his defeat of Scots, Picts and Saxons presumably in 396-8 AD
417 AD Orosius (Historium adversum paganos book vii) a native of Hispania, writing in North Africa. Referring to the barbarian incursion across the Rhine in 406 AD (Book VII, 40):
When the barbarians were overrunning Gaul in Britain Gratian, ‘a citizen of the island, was made a usurper’ only to be killed. Then Constantine was elected, ‘a man of the lowest military rank, on account of the hope alone which came from his name….’ Constantine then crossed over into Gaul.
390-425 AD the Notitia Dignitatum: A civil and military list of offices that may include updated or outdated posts with uncertain provenance and date. In summary it lists the following:
Provinciae, Britanniae V: Maxima Caesariensis, Valentia, Britannia prima, Britannia secunda, Flavia Caesariensis.
Consuls were responsible for the first two and ‘presidents’ for the other three with a Vicarius Britanniae overseeing all five.
Militarily there were two counts: Comes Britanniarum and Comes Litoris Saxonici per Britanniam. Additionally one Duke (of the frontiers), Dux Britanniarum. There then follows a list of units.
425 AD Olympiodorus of Thebes referring to Stilicho leaving Britain and Gaul open to invasion:
Records discontent in Britain, with the rule of the Stilicho, and ‘with lack of attention his government paid to the defence of Britain against the Picts’
Constantine was ‘brought to power by a revolt of the soldiers….in the provinces of Britain.’
Then: ‘in the provinces of Britain before the seventh consulship of Honorius in 407, they had stirred the army there to revolt, and proclaimed a certain Marcus as supreme ruler.’
Constantine is raised to ‘supreme commander’ and crosses to Gaul with his troops gaining control ‘as far as the Alps.’
439 AD Sozomen originally from Gaza writing in Constantinople: Historia Ecclesiastica concerning the years 324-439. Regarding Britain after 406 AD gives more detail:
‘The soldiers in Britain were the first to rise up in sedition.
First Mark was made ‘tyrant’ but then killed by the soldiers who had proclaimed him. This was followed by Gratian who they also killed four months later.
Next came Constantine who they thought ‘on account of his name… would be able to reduce the empire firmly under his authority.’
It describes Constantine nominating his son Constans Caesar then Emperor and sending him to Spain.
After, Constantine with his other son Julian are ‘waylaid and killed’ on their way to Italy.
450 AD The Narratio de imperatoribus domus Valentinianae et Theodosiane was an anonymous text concerning the emperors from Valentinian I to Honorius (364-423).
It records in the reign of Honorius ‘many heavy blows befell the state’ namely Gaula nd Spain were ‘demolished and utterly destroyed by the barbarian nations of the Vandals, Sueves, and Alans’ and Rome was ‘captured and overthrown’ by the Visigoth King Alaric.
Most relevant though was: ‘Britain was forever removed from the Roman name.’
452 AD The Gallic Chronicle (a)
The Britains were devastated by an incursion of the Saxons 409 AD
The Britains, which to this time had suffered from various disasters and misfortunes, are reduced to the power of the Saxons 441 AD
455 AD Prosper of Aquitaine later a notary of Pope Leo I wrote the Epitoma Chronicon.
Records that Agricola, ‘son of the Pelagian bishop Severianus, corrupted the British churches’. Then Palladius persuaded Pope Celestine to send Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, to Britain to combat the Pelagian heresy prompting Germanus’s fisrts visit in 429 AD.
Then: ‘Palladius was sent by Pope Celestine to the Scots who believed in Christ, and was ordained as their first bishop’.
The Scotti being the Irish.
500 AD Zosimus, Historia Nova
Book VI.5.2-3
Records that the barbarians north of the Rhine ‘reduced the inhabitants of Britain and some of the Celtic peoples to defecting from the Roman rule and living their own lives, independent from the Roman laws. The Britons therefore took up arms and, braving the danger on their own behalf, freed their cities from the barbarian threat.’
Then Armorica and ‘other Gallic provinces’ expelled the Roman officials.
Book VI.5-6
Gerontius in Spain rebelled against against Constantine. Then: ‘the barbarians from beyond the Rhine overran everything at will and reduced the inhabitants of the British Island and some of the peoples in Gaul to the necessity of rebelling from the Roman empire’
This defection occurred during ‘Constantine’s tyranny’ due to the ‘carelessness in administration.’
Book VI.10.2
Honorius writes to the cities of Britain, telling them to look to their own defences.
511 AD Gallic Chronicle (b) with reference to 440 AD
The Britains, lost to the Romans, yield to the power of the Saxons.
540 AD Procopius of Caesera (Palestine)
Concerning 407 AD:
Bellum Vandalicum 3.2.31
States the Britons revolted then the soldiers chose ‘Constanti(us, a man of no mean station’. And He gathered a ‘fleet of ships and a formidable army and invaded both Spain and Gaul with a great force.’
Concerning 411 AD
Bellum Vandalicum 3.2.38
Records the death of Alaric and the defeat and death of Constantine and his sons.
Then: ‘the Romans never succeeded in recovering Britain, but it remained from that time on under tyrants.’
Concerning the middle of the 6th century
History of the Wars 8.20.6-10 (553 AD)
Three very populous nations inhabit the Island of Brittia, and one king is set over each of them. And the names of these nations are Angles, Frisians, and Britons who have the same name as the island. So great apparently is the multitude of these peoples that every year in large groups they migrate from there with their women and children and go to the Franks. And they [the Franks] are settling them in what seems to be the more desolate part of their land, and as a result of this they say they are gaining possession of the island. So that not long ago the king of the Franks actually sent some of his friends to the Emperor Justinian in Byzantium, and despatched with them the men of the Angles, claiming that this island [Britain], too, is ruled by him. Such then are the matters concerning the island called Brittia.
What all these sources tell us is that after Constantine III left Britain with the last legions around 407, the Romano-British were effectively on their own. The response by Honorius to their appeals for help in 410 confirmed this. It is only with hindsight that later sources pinpoint this as the moment that Britain broke away from Roman rule. In reality, the province may have continued regarding itself as part of the Roman world for some time.
It is worth taking particular note of the two Gallic Chronicle entries referring to 441 and Saxons gaining power over the Britons. They were written in 452 and 511 respectively in Gaul. These documents are usually reasonably accurate, yet this date does not fit into the narrative of either Gildas or Bede which we will hear later. It is also not accurate for the whole island given that Devon and Cornwall held out for hundreds of years, and Wales until the time of Edward I. So which part of the country fell and what ‘yields to the power of the Saxons’ means is open to debate. It is likely it refers to the South East as that is the closest to Gaul. This leads us to speculate about the province of Maxima Caesariensis, the Count of the Saxon Shore military command and the Diocese capital, London.
It is worth pointing out that Nennius, in the ninth-century Historia Brittonum, does indicate a Saxon arrival in 428 and subsequent revolt which would tie in with this date, and it is this very source that first mentions Arthur. We need to compare this to Bede writing in the eighth century, who is more respected and yet posits a date of 449 for the Saxon arrival and a later date for their revolt. However it is true that the only contemporary source from the Continent does suggest an earlier date for any Saxon incursions. To focus on the Gallic Chronicle below are selected entries for the 440s:
Table 4: Gallic Chronicle entries
440
Deserted lands near the city of Valence were given to the Alans, ruled by Sambida.
441
The Britons, which to this time had suffered from various disasters and misfortunes, are reduced to the power of the Saxons.
443
The Alans … subdued by warfare those who resisted them … and obtained possession of the land by force.
444
Carthage, having been captured by the Vandals … threw off the power of the Roman Empire.
445
Thrace is wounded by an incursion of the Huns.
A number of things to note:
After 446 the chronicle is accurate; before 446, the further away from Gaul the less accurate the record. So the entries for 444 and 445 are actually four or five years too late. What this means is that the entry for Britain for 441, being close to Gaul, is likely to be fairly accurate, but if not, could well be even earlier. The phrase ‘reduced to the power of’ is often used to mean a military take over. It could though mean something else such as a political change. This may be important when we come to later narratives. What this means for Gildas and Bede dating for the arrival of the Saxons is uncertain. Either they are are incorrect or they are talking about two separate events. We cannot equate this with Bede’s date for the arrival of the Saxons for a couple of very good reasons. First, the Gallic entry most definitely does not relate to a simple arrival, but to a significant change in the balance of power either politically or militarily. Second, Bede makes it clear that the Saxon revolt occurred sometime after the arrival. So it’s not simply a case of trying to bring the Gallic date of 441 forward to meet Bede’s date for the arrival of 446 or 449, because Bede records the revolt as some time after that.
So in conclusion, the Gallic Chronicle is fairly reliable. It describes some sort of Saxon takeover in 441 which appears to contradict the timeline recorded elsewhere such as Gildas and Bede. But this date of 441 is vitally important in laying out a narrative that includes a historical Arthur. However, there is much debate in academic circles on this point and no clear consensus, certainly not for any precise dating.
The issue of the different timelines each of the sources offer is crucial in understanding this period. But we do have a contemporary source relating to a visit to Britain in AD 429, twenty years after the break from Roman authority. Constantius of Lyon, born in approximately 420, wrote The Life of Saint Germanus in around 480. In response to the rise of the Pelagian heresy, Bishop Germanus of Auxerre travels to Britain accompanied by Lupus. Pelagius is usually described as a British monk and subscribed to the idea that free will is more important than original sin. Anti-Pelagian legislation started to appear on the Continent in 418 and Prosper of Aquitaine relates that a Pelagian supporter, Agricola, fled to Britain where it appeared to be safe.2
Germanus is welcomed by crowds of people and later enters into some sort of debating contest with followers of Pelagius ‘flaunting their wealth’ in their ‘dazzling robes’, witnessed by a great crowd thus suggesting they come from a rich aristocracy. During this debate a tribune brings his blind daughter to the bishop who cures her in front of the crowd. The ‘true church’ wins the debate and Germanus visits St Albans just outside London. There then follows an incursion of Saxons and Picts, so possibly from the north. The British army retreats to a camp and requests help from Germanus. On arrival he baptises many of the soldiers and appoints himself Dux Proelii (leader for battle). He positions his army hidden in a steep valley between mountains which suggests Wales or the north, and on sighting the enemy they all shout ‘Alleluia’ repeatedly, scaring the enemy who run away, many drowning in a river. The ‘most wealthy island’ now secure, Germanus returns to Gaul
Some time later the Pelagian heresy returns and Germanus travels once more, this time with a man called Severus. Germanus meets bishops and a leading man of the province, Elafius, and cures his son’s withered leg. The Pelagic heretics are banished from Britain and Germanus returns to Gaul to intervene in a dispute in Armorica before dying in Ravenna in Italy. So we have a picture of a Christian Britain, possibly with some form of Roman-like administration in the form of tribunes, leading men of the province and bishops. But there are also raids from Picts and interestingly, Saxons. Despite this, travel is possible both from outside of Britain and internally. There is some debate whether the second visit was in the 437, 442 or 448, with most scholars preferring the later date. However, it is important to consider this in conjunction with the Gallic Chronicle. A visit before 440 would explain why there is no reference to this Saxon power in the text. A later visit might explain where the author of the Chronicle got their information from.
