Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
Where was Valentia?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 30th May 2011
βHe (Theodosius) crossed to Richborough and marched to London. Immunity to deserters...named Civilis as pro-praefect. London now called Augusta..completely restored the towns and forts..the recovery of a province that had fallen into the hands of the enemy was so complete...emperor decreed that henceforth it should be called Valentia.β
Under Diocletian Britain was divided into 4 provinces, possibly to diminish the concentration of power. The provinces were: Britannia Prima, Maxima Caesariensis, Britannia Secunda and Flavia Caesariensis. Naturally the provincial boundaries are subject to considerable uncertainly although there is epigraphic evidence that Cirencester (Corinium) was the capital of Britannia Prima. There is support for the account given by Ammianus Marcellinus on the creation of Valentia after the 'barbarian conspiracy' of 367 AD, since the name also occurs in the Notitia Dignitatum. Valentia was probably a late name given to a sub-province, or to the whole of Britain. If you were renaming the capital, why not rename the nation? However the text of the ND treats Valentia exactly like the other 4 provinces with a consul as its head.
Like most of the problems that feature on this board no definitive solution to the location of Valentia is likely to be found. One theory, which the author of the Wikipedia entry favours, places the province between Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall. This might fit with the phrase 'recovery of a province'. On the other hand the late 4th century seems an odd time for de jure imperial expansion, and we have a problem of finding a suitable capital. Barri Jones & David Mattingley, in their 'Atlas of Roman Britain' also suggest a northern location, but wisely do not offer a map! JC Mann in Britannia suggested that Valentia was formed around the presumed capital of Britannia Secunda β York (Eboracum). This area was later called Elmet. Do any of our place name experts buy the derivation of the second name from the first?
The map of the Western Empire given by Guy Halsall in his essential book 'Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West' labels as Valentia a province uniting the whole of modern Wales and Cumbria, and leaves Britannia Prima with modern Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Dorset. Unfortunately the location issue is not discussed in the text. Tthe Cumbria-Wales area has an obvious capital at Chester, and the survival of this province in some form as a successor state in the post-Imperial period has its attractions.
So, where was Valentia?
TP -
Message 2
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 30th May 2011
The Notorious Notitia, which likes lists in order of descending importance, lists it as second behind MC.
Maxima Caesariensis
Valentia
Britannia prima
Britannia secunda
Flauia Caesariensis
This suggests either a vital or large province (or both), making it all the more strange how come its loss was never reported in any other source.
One possible explanation;
Ammianus, who you quote above, is careful to use the phrase "velut ovans" when describing how the emperor regarded this "recovered" province. This is normally translated as "minor triumph" however it is translated more literally as "just like a triumph (but not a real one)" or "virtually a triumph", and was used when describing feats of military prowess in situations which, had they been directed against an enemy, could well have earned their executors a triumph. Where one comes across it most is in reference to the putting down of rebellions.
If such is the case here then the "losing" of the province may not have been to any consorting hordes of barbarians which are so often presumed in this episode, but instead to internal dissent or political disobedience. We even know, thanks to Ammianus, of one such contemporary occurrence which Theodosius also had to stamp out - interestingly started up by a man called Valentinus - though again rather infuriatingly we aren't told exactly which part of Britain this Pannonian rebel based himself in. However it is enough of a potential overlap to have led Peter Salway, for one, to theorise that no actual provinces were "lost" to invasion at the time, and on that basis favour the location of Valentia where someone like Valentinus might have expected to make the most of his opportunity and where other philological sources also suggest it might once have been - namely the area from North Wales through Cumbria with either Chester or Carlisle operating as the admin centre, or possibly even both at the time. -
Message 3
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 30th May 2011
Oh dear. It was very sloppy of me not to check Salway's thoughts on this matter. He certainly is a great deal more positive on this topic than many Roman historians. The manner which in which you describe Valentia coming into being sounds quite convincing so 'all' we have to do is discover where!
I've just checked two more historians. Esmonde Cleary seems to accept that Valentia was a renamed existing province, although this theory involves accepting that the entry in the ND is a mistake, or at least a duplication. Ken Dark also writes that Valentia 'may' be a former province.
I'm interested in the sub-units into which post-Imperial Britain dissolved. Did the Roman provinces have any 'meaning' for their inhabitants, as opposed to being an administrative convenience for the central government? Were there provincial differences in matters of language or religion? A unit consisting of Cumbria and Cymru has many attractions.
TP -
Message 4
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 31st May 2011
Going by grave inscriptions it would seem that there was no special identification on the part of inhabitants with whatever particular British province they lived or had been born in. Where places of origin of the occupants are named they tend to indicate a municipal or other such local allegiance in cases of those born in Britain. Interestingly, for those born in other parts of the empire but buried in Britain the "foreign" province in question often gets a name-check. It would be interesting therefore to see an analysis of the reverse - graves of British-born citizens buried elsewhere - and see how the matter of identity was handled. To my knowledge I am not aware of any such study - perhaps you've seen one TP?
But I imagine the citizens' treatment of their provincial identity conformed with modern equivalents where provinces are considered sub-divisions of a political entity in which tradition, geography, distinctive culture or other such attribute contributes to a conception of self-containment for the whole which supersedes the provincial part in the minds of the inhabitants. An Irish gravestone in the modern era, for example, would tend not to name the occupant as a "Leinster person" or "born in Munster" etc. Only where the name of the province has itself become a slogan in some political issue, such as "Ulster", might one see such a thing. From the evidence of Roman graves it would appear such issues never arose, at least while the Romans were running the shop. -
Message 5
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 31st May 2011
Hi Nordmann
Thanks. The only recent attempts I know of to map population movements in the Roman Empire from tombstone inscriptions are by Maureen Carroll (University of Sheffield). The results are published in her book 'Spirits of the Dead'.
You will not be totally surprised that her findings conform with your suggestions. The tombstones of the legionaries from Chester (for example) often mention a civitas capital as a place of origin, but not a Roman province. A great many tombstones are known throughout the western empire that give tribal affiliations as their ethnic identifiers. In fact there is one quite close to me in Ilkley (Manor House Museum) where a woman is recorded as being 'of the Cornovii'.
I believe (but I cannot easily check my memory) that very few individuals of proven British origin have ever had tombstones located elsewhere, and those few tend to call themselves 'Brittones' or some such. British provincials don't seem to have created much of a stir in the western empire, or at least not in the 1st-3rd centuries from which most of the tombstones date.
None of this really helps me discover on what basis post-imperial successor states were formed in Britain. Did it depend solely on the reach of the nearest war-lord, or were religious and linguistic considerations of importance. We have no evidence that the citizens of Britannia Secunda (nascent Yorkshire people though they were) felt themselves a cut above their fellows from Britannia Prima)!
TP -
Message 6
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 31st May 2011
It's not something I ever really thought about - the possible correlation between whatever splinter states developed and the last configuration of Roman provincial administration.
I assume there must have been a natural tendency in the beginning to simply take over the chunks already defined as fairly autonomous entities but I haven't a clue how successful such attempts might have been - the waters became very cloudy very quickly it would appear and whether one believes in marauding Saxons or not there would appear to have been just too many internal frictions and economic/agrarian disasters being contended with so soon afterwards for any such ideal to be realised. There seems to have been some limited and demonstrable success at establishing continuity in the south-west, but that doesn't even give us a hint at the success or otherwise of continuing Britannia Prima as a viable entity in its original extent for however limited a period this might have actually been achieved.
Valentia itself seems a good illustration of this dilemma. On the one hand it might only have existed in a bureaucratic sense, and then only in the minds of a limited few for a very limited period. On the other hand it could well have outlasted - at least in title - its contemporaries and be the basis for what would become Powys itself, thereby ensuring its survival to the 12th century (and is even still with us today in name). It all depends on which sources you place most faith in, and though such preferences might well be arbitrary the implications for reconstructing post-imperial geography and history are as huge as these choices on which they are predicated are almost whimsical.
Fascinating but frustrating stuff - one of those candidates of mine for when I finally get my NordmannXL5 Time Machine (with extra pre-wash) off the drawing board! -
Message 7
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Tuesday, 31st May 2011
If Valentia is created in the wake of a failure of the pre-existing provincial arrangement to deal with the multiple fronts of the Barbarian Conspiracy it would make a certain sense to divide up the provinces so that each was likely to face only a single enemy (or, at least, fewer enemies) at a time. A creation of a Valentia bordering the Irish Sea, specifically to defend against Irish attack, seperate from the rest of the earlier northern province (presumably Britannia Secunda, although that Wikipedia page wants it to be Maxima Caesariensis) which would then have been left to deal with predominantly Pictish attack, while Flavia Caesarensis remained the frontline against the Saxons, would be reasonable. So I would accept a Valentia based around Cumbria extending at least into North Wales as making strategic sense.
-
Message 8
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 31st May 2011
Hi Daniel-K
For this to work we should have to assume that the military command structure followed the arrangement of the civilian administration. This worked in the 1st & 2nd centuries, when the provincial governor was also the army commander, but by the late 4th century the civilian and military structures had been separated. I see the field army of the Duke of the Britains being free to operate in any province.
I admit I am a little heterodox in these matters. I'm far from convinced that Britain was under attack from the Irish, Saxons & Picts during this period, nor that the Barbarian Conspiracy took place.
TP -
Message 9
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Wednesday, 1st June 2011
If Valentia did not represent new territory (and we seem all agreed on that) and it was not created for defensive reasons (which TwinProbe strongly argues) then we would seem to be left with two possibilities: caprice or punishment.
Either
1/ Caprice: Valentia was created out of vainglory or sycophancy. Either because Theodosius wanted to create a province for his own fame or to get in with the Emperors by naming it for them (or both).
or
2/ Punishment: Valentia was created for punative reasons, to break up a rebellious province, deliberately to weaken it and prevent its future authorities from having power enough to rebel.
But if either of those is the reason then the question of where it was would seem to be unanswerable. If the new province existed primarily for the sake of existing (as both possibilities above would mean) then it could have been located anywhere. -
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 1st June 2011
It does seem impossible for Valentia to consist of new territory and in the late empire new provinces were regularly created by subdivision of an old province which had proved too large. I hope I haven't taken the matter of defence further than the evidence allows. I am sure that the administrative and military commands were disassociated at this stage, but it has been argued that the defence of a single province wouldn't have been split between two commands.
I think I have managed to answer the question I posed in the initial post. The map in Guy Halsall's book which shows Valentia as consisting of Wales and Cumbria is based on Map II in AHM Jone's 'The Later Roman Empire (1964). Unfortunately we are not much better off since Valentia does not feature in the index of this work. The topic may be included somewhere in the text but as you will know 'The Later Roman Empire' is not a book to flick through in an afternoon!
I think that you are being a little unfair on the elder Theodosius by attributing to him either 'vainglory or sycophancy'. Powerful Roman emperors were most difficult men to handle; a popular general's success might prove as deadly to him as abject failure. You will remember that Domitian had some poor chap's head for not namely a new spear after the emperor, and after all Valentinian did end up executing Theodosius! He may have felt a desperate need to placate his master with a provincial name at this time. A punitive reassignment is a definite possibility especially if the region had been the site of a Roman led 'independence movement' rather than a barbarian incursion. There is no positive evidence for this however, as far as I know.
I can't really argue with your feeling that the location of Valentia is an unanswerable question. On the other hand most of the questions in this section of the message board are, in a strict sense, unanswerable, which in no way appears to inhibit debate. The suggestion that Valentia was situated in modern north Wales with a capital at Chester (Deva) is thoroughly and entertainingly discussed by Ann Dornier in 'The Province of Valentia' (1982) Britannia 13, 253. Her argument depends on 'late Welsh sources which must reflect the 6th century' and I have to admit (as a non-Welsh speaking northern Britain) I would take some convincing.
TP -
Message 11
Posted by Mak Wilson (U14889062) on Wednesday, 1st June 2011
For anyone interested, I've written a five part blog on this very subject. It can be found at:
-
Message 12
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Wednesday, 1st June 2011
in the late empire new provinces were regularly created by subdivision of an old province which had proved too large.
Μύ
Yes, but the location we seem to be favouring for Valentia of Cumbria to Wales would not represent the division of one old province but the taking of bits from (at least) two other provinces and joining them together into a single new province, which would be much more unusual. So that might be an argument for a smaller Valentia, covering only Cumbria or only Wales or only a part of Wales and so only taking territory from a single earlier province. -
Message 13
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 1st June 2011
Well there is certainly something in what you say. I suppose that since I am used to a unitary 'Wales' I must constantly remind myself that this is a modern creation, and that for most of its history it contained several quite distinct polities.
I do wish we could be more certain where the boundaries of the other provinces were. A possibility is that a fifth province was created some time earlier in the 4th century, name unknown. Theodosius rescued it from external or internal threat, and then re-named it. If I was allowed to be very speculative I would hazard a guess that Constantine the Great wanted his own capital and province in Britain and might have chosen the city where his was made emperor.
TP -
Message 14
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 2nd June 2011
My last post was not improved by the New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc. Let me try again.
If Constantine the Great did found the fifth British province he didn't do so immediately since the Verona List (312-314 AD) records only four provinces.
Another important point was that the governor of Valentia was said to be a consularis, and thus of senatorial rank, as opposed to a praeses of equestrian rank. I understand that the creation of consularis provinces did begin during the rule of Constantine and that the province containing the regional capital, like London, would have had one. In my opinion we are undoubtedly looking for an area round Britain's 'second city'. That could in theory be Cirencester, Chester, York or Lincoln. Cirencester we know by epigraphy to have been in Britannia Prima.
If the unnamed province that evolved into Valentia was indeed created by Constantine then York is a safe bet. It was a legionary base, his father died there and it was there that Constantine was first acclaimed emperor.
TP -
Message 15
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 2nd June 2011
Hi All
Surely this needs to be taken into the context of the Great Conspiracy (or if you donβt believe in that), a rebellion against the Roman Empire, desertion by her soldiers and serious incursions by a number of different tribal forces..
This would appear to be far worse than a small incursion with the Northern commander being beseiged and the Southern commander being killed. Slaves and deserters from the Army roamed the countryside as well as bands of invaders - for over a year.
Two army commanders were sent by Valentinian ( Jovinus and Severus) but both were recalled or retreated.
It was not until Theodosius was sent that order was eventually restored partly by declaring an amnesty to the deserters. The Roman Army must have been severely stretched at this time.
βHe (Theodosius) crossed to Richborough and marched to London. Immunity to deserters...named Civilis as pro-praefect. London now called Augusta.. completely restored the towns and forts..the recovery of a province that had fallen into the hands of the enemy was so complete...emperor decreed that henceforth it should be called Valentia.β
As Nordmann points out the awarding of a minor triumph regarding the re-conquest of a Diocese speaks volumes. This was a taking back from rebellious troops, slaves and barbarians. A brave venture no doubt but hardly glorious or an expansion.
Certainly Britannia had to be rebuilt according to the sources and well garrisoned - a completely fresh start perhaps away from a province that constantly produced Usurpers.
As TP originally states "If you were renaming the capital, why not rename the nation?
Indeed why not?
So why was Valentia mentioned in the ND or for that matter the βCount of the Saxon Shoreβ? But then why wasnβt the Sixth Legion Vitrix mentioned in the ND when they were stationed at York?
I have to agree that more than one emperor seems to have based themselves at York (perhaps because of the proximity to the Wall perhaps because it was also a Roman colony), Severus was there, Constantius was there and Constantine the Great stayed there for a year, and there is no reason to suppose that York was not a βsecond capitalβ but why would you need two?
The idea of a buffer state in the North Wales / Cumbria area has its attractions for many especially in light of the invasions around the time of the Great Conspiracy but the area itself is not that well defended (the Wall is hardly visible here) the nearest large concentration of troops being at Carlisle or Chester although there are various seaports on the Cumbrian coast....
Despite the best efforts to either place or define Valentia, it remains an enigma.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 16
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 3rd June 2011
As Nordmann points out the awarding of a minor triumph regarding the re-conquest of a Diocese speaks volumes.
Μύ
Hi TA
Careful ... "Awarding" a triumph and crediting someone with a triumph (major or minor) were two different things to Romans of the period - the former was a very specific political statement and event, the latter was a figure of speech as we would use the term today. The latter applies here, and that is all I meant to convey.
The idea of a buffer state in the North Wales / Cumbria area has its attractions for many ...
Μύ
The concept of degrading the status of a province or portion of a province back to mere "buffer state" would not only have been repugnant to Roman sensibilities but, I feel, would have been impossible to implement without dire consequences for the rest of their acquisitions in the general area. And nor is there a precedent or parallel for such an action in the empire's history.
In any case I am not sure that we know enough about the actual external threat (if any) to even hypothesise on that basis that Rome would have taken such a drastic and unique step with regard to this sizeable and important part of its British investment, which by then was a long established one and one on which the central imperial authority had committed huge expenses and resources in the past to keep, at times against bigger threats from within the empire's wider borders than ever could have been presented by Britain's "aggressive neighbours" of the 4th century.
Whether "Valentia" applies to this specific region or not, or whether this area was reorganised within the provincial administration or not, I think we can be reasonably safe in assuming that it might indeed have taken the brunt of attack from external aggressors but that it was - in Roman minds - still very much a border territory, not a buffer territory. The two had radically distinct meanings in Roman military terms and even more radically distinct meanings in terms of investment, taxation and social administration. -
Message 17
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Saturday, 4th June 2011
I wondering now if the view of Valentia as lying between the Hadrianic and Antonine walls might be more defensible than we had thought. It is possible to imagine the Picts immediately to the north of Hadrian's Wall becoming fairly soft through exposure to Roman luxuries and becoming comfortable with Rome so that when more warlike Picts attacked from the north the locals were willing to throw their lot in with Rome and open the doors to Theodosius. I believe the Claudian invasion had been considered a reconquest of the island Julius Caesar had taken rather than an original act of conquest (although that thought may owe more to 'I Claudius' than any work of academic history!), if so the Romans took a wide view of what was properly their territory and so may have considered a reoccupation of that area between the walls as only worth a minor triumph even though it had been out of their hands for generations.
-
Message 18
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 4th June 2011
Hi Daniel-K
I'm sure that you're right not to dismiss this idea out of hand, but there are some major objections all the same. Remember that the governor of Valentia was a consularis, which implies that the province was second in importance to Maxima Caesariensis, with a capital second only to London. Even if the border of the inter-vallum region ran far south enough to include Carlisle this seems improbable.
Locating the Picts is a separate (and extremely interesting) problem, but if you you postulate that they (wherever they were) had grown soft on Roman luxuries I would ask you where the remains of those luxuries are in the archaeological record? There is plenty of Roman material in Scotland but it is largely 1st - 2nd century, not 4th. My personal solution is that the Picts were being paid (in silver) to stay away. They were a perceived threat or a potential threat rather than an actual one.
I would agree that the Roman central command probably considered that they had 'rights' over the whole of Britain, and Germany as well for that matter. But the Romans were realists; de facto occupation of the inter-vallum region in the late 4th century would have been a major task, and for what benefit? In fact there is a good deal of evidence that the army was being concentrated in the south-east during this period eg Legio II Augusta moves from Carleon to Richborough. The reason for this move may be to enable Continental intervention to be more easy.
TP -
Message 19
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Saturday, 4th June 2011
Hi TP
Thanks for your comments
I have a couple of questions for you.......
With regards to Valentia, you say βI think we can be reasonably safe in assuming that it might indeed have taken the brunt of attack from external aggressorsβ.
Coupling this statement with the placement of Valentia in the North with its capital at York begs the question, in your opinion who was attacking this area and what were the boundaries of Valentia?
Were they from the North, down the coast, from the West or from across the North Sea?
Are you saying that the main thrust of the attacks during the Great Conspiracy was against Valentia as the renaming of this Province would appear to be a direct result of the response by Rome to the invasion/s and the destruction of large parts of Britannia?
AD367 saw not only the North but also the South being ravaged with soldiers deserting in the South and invaders running riot as stated in your original post.
So why do you believe that the main thrust of the attacks at this time were via the North?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 20
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
Hi TA
It was Nordmann who made these comments, not me. As you may recall I am something of a heretic when it comes to the Barbarian Conspiracy.
TP -
Message 21
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
Hi TP / Nordmann
My apologies for the mix up....
The questions still stand for Nordmann if he wouldn't mind?
TP, I have always wondered about your reticence regarding the Great Conspiracy although I am surprised that all these different peoples did conspire and organised a Roman revolt on the Wall at the same time!
Certainly for two Roman military leaders to fail to put down the revolt and expel the invaders shows that the oppositin must have been quite strong or the Roman armies quite weak.
From what is said Britannia had to be rebuilt (or at least built of stone by Count Theodosius) so the country must have been well and truly robbed.
Or is there some other explanation?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 22
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
Hi
I should really have phrased it differently and said "the area may or may not have borne the brunt of attack ..." since my point was really about the unsuitability of the term "buffer state" for the region in question and is very much grounded in the opinion that no concerted invasion or mass assault occurred, at least in the form of a major alliance of aggressive neighbours which, if concentrated on the western seaboard, would have entailed Irish-based involvement. Irish historical myth and, more recently, Irish archaeology paints a picture - admittedly vague - of a rather different interaction between that Island and Roman Britain, one that appears to have had some measure of mutuality in its conduct and one which effectively eliminates the Irish tribes from any attempt to capitalise territorially from a perceived Roman weakness at that precise time.
Haesten has argued before here - and not without some validity - that we probably understimate Irish involvement militarily in what has been traditionally considered "internal" British affairs at this time. He proposes the presence of Irish mercenaries in significant numbers within provincial Britain of the period and I don't dismiss the notion. I do however diverge from his theory that this represents a potentially aggressive political strategy on the part of an Irish-based kingdom, but only because it is remarkable to me that such a policy did not make it in to the albeit fuzzy "history" of the period recorded in Ireland, where such a policy would have excited some attention and been used to imply credentiality of a sort to one or more of the many small kingdoms competing for supremacy in Ireland at the time. Other such credentials were employed in just that manner, most notably later with the Dal Riada expansion, and where they occur in the historical myth they tend to be backed up with factual evidence. A 4th century equivalent however is absent.
However I also conform to the view that a period of political factionism within Roman Britain, and one which was recorded by the Romans themselves in terms of insurgency and rebellion, could not have failed to excite incursive activity on the part of the provinces' near neighbours who hitherto had been kept at arm's length from what was still a potentially lucrative asset and might well have seized the opportunity to invade. But I would tend to believe such activity was more opportunistic than strategic, motivated by short-term ambitions rather than long-term plans of acquisition or colonisation, and therefore all the less inclined to have been conducive to the formation of any great "military alliance", even if it might have suited later chroniclers to portray it as such.
In such a scenario I would tend to imagine the Irish were both excluded and happy to be excluded, preoccupied as they seemed to be in any case by domestic warfare. If they had formulated a policy it would have been a "wait and see" one, though I doubt if they had much opportunity to even discuss such policy formation, let alone engage in it. It is interesting however that when history does eventually record an Irish incursion as Roman Britain eventually collapsed it was not into Roman Britain's then territory but into lands to its north that it happened - land which even the most ardent supporter of the theory of militant Saxon takeover would agree was land on which the Saxons held no designs of acquisition. If therefore we are to sieve through the scant historical detail and attempt to find evidence of a great military alliance by the standards of the day where none has yet been proven to have existed, perhaps a Hiberno-Saxon alliance might be a more profitable starting point for conjecture?
None of which gets us closer to Valentia, I am afraid. Personally I think its short life (probably only a decade and a half) meant that it could well have existed even without its inhabitants even ever getting to hear about it. In any case, wherever it was, I am very doubtful it was subject to a mass Irish-Pict-Barbarian-of-Your-Choice invasion. -
Message 23
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
Hi TA
A widely held view is that the events in Britain in AD 367 represented a collaborative conspiracy between the Picts, Scots, Attacotti, Franks and Saxons to invade Britain. I don't think Ammianus Marcellinus goes quite that far. The Franks and the Saxons are said to be raiding those parts of the Empire that are nearest to them, which may well be Gaul rather than Britain. Also I don't think the wording indicates that the attacks were pre-planned by the various barbarian groups involved, which would have required a scarcely credible degree of mutual contact and co-operation.
We seem on this message board to have reached a measure of agreement over the personal agendas that historians may have. Ammianus might well have had good reason to magnify the achievements of the elder Theodosius since his son was emperor at the time he was writing.
An interesting feature of the account is the 'impunity' Theodosius promised deserters and 'others who were straggling about the country'. I wonder the Conspiracy was a mutiny by Roman federate troops, or even represents the recruitment of barbarian allies by an unnamed Roman officer at odds with central government. Ammianus reports that Nectaridus, the Count of the Shore, had been slain in battle, and the dux, Fullofaudes, had been taken prisoner by the enemy. Both have Germanic names, and Ammianus doesn't actually say exactly who they were fighting for at the time! Their replacements, Civilis and Dulcitius have more Roman sounding names for what that's worth.
TP -
Message 24
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
It's not worth much, TP. "Civilis" as a nomen normally just means that the bearer is a "new" citizen. "Dulcitius" (the Roman equivalent of "sweety-pie") suggests someone with a slave in their recent ancestry, if not that he himself is of recent manumission. In both cases the name suggests that they too could just as easily have had Germanic origins as their predecessors, and might even have been promoted from among those who had received amnesty.
I agree with you about Ammianus. He's great on extremely tiny detail but infuriatingly non-descriptive where it counts. I often wonder who exactly he was writing for? It is interesting also that the rebuilding of his texts began with 9th century Carolingians working from an insular copy, now lost. -
Message 25
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
Yes, a very good point. Gaius Julius Civilis led a Batavian rebellion against the Romans in 68 or 69, and he had been made a citizen by one of the Julio-Claudain emperors.
TP -
Message 26
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
Hi Nordmann
Many thanks for a most interesing and informative post.
As you say there does seem to be an ambivalent attotude to the Irish as both people who seem to have settled in West Wales (possibly as mercenaries) and also as raiders up near Cumbria.
The Great Conspiracy as actually being an internal revolt attracting raiders after loot due to a reduced Roman Army does have an elegance and simplicity that fits the limited facts quite nicely.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 27
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
Hi TP
Many thanks.
You and Nordmann have put a different complexion on the Great Conspiracy. It wouldn't have been the first time that Britainnia had spawned an uprising or Usurper.
Could Valentia have been a short term answer to breaking down the Diocese as happened before to combat the rise of Usurpers?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 28
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 5th June 2011
Hi TA
A case has been made by Conor Laftery in UCD that what was going on amounted to "slave harvesting" by certain Irish "entrepreneurs" operating more likely in partnership with than in defiance of Roman rule. The notable absence of Roman reference to a naval presence under their direct control in the Irish Sea, upon which we now assume quite a bit of traffic was engaged in throughout the period, suggests an "understanding" of sorts existed at least in later years, possibly along the lines of using Irish fleets as patrols who were "paid" in a commodity which the Irish could translate into wealth more readily than they could coinage. Laftery suggests the system probably became big business first during the period of the Gallic Empire and subsequent administrations accommodated it rather than seriously attempted to stop it. This would mean that the Irish "mercenaries" were in fact a rather more complicated phenomenon than simply recruits serving British interests, something which might indeed have occurred but which was also a presence designed to facilitate the trade continuing - ultimately serving Irish interests, rather than Roman.
Speculative stuff, but a theory which helps to explain the Romano-Irish archaeological record in particular and maybe some of what has been found in Wales and elsewhere too. It also helps add credence to the St Patrick legend, but that's by the by. -
Message 29
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 6th June 2011
TP
Pacatus says Theodosius ordered aggressive countermeasures against Saxon pirates. -
Message 30
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 6th June 2011
That's an interesting idea and would fit in with the general concept that the relationship between the Romans and various groups of 'barbarians' was highly complex and organised.
Do you not think that the life of St Patrick sheds some valuable light on sea movements in the 5th century? The seizure of Patrick illustrates that Irish 'pirates' were able to mount a raid somewhere on the coast of Roman Britian, but his later 'letter to Coroticus' suggests that a west coast British warlord is equally able to land in Ireland to kill or enslave. Patrick finds a ship in Ireland which takes him to somewhere with a wilderness - Brittany perhaps, but later revisits Britain. Finally he travels back to Ireland, either direct or via his ecclesiastical superiors in Gaul.
All this suggests that there is Irish sea piracy open to anyone with ships and soldiers to conduct it, but also 'scheduled' crossings from Britain and Gaul. Things may not have changed much in two centuries since Adomnan describes the presence of Gallic sailors at Iona.
I think this fits well with the archaeological evidence. You have said before that Roman artefacts have been found in Ireland, but not in vast numbers. We can hypothesis that Irish pirates wanted slaves or silver ransom, but were not attacking settlements to take brooches, glass or fine-ware pottery. A regular west coast (from the point of Britain) service from Gaul in AD 400-800 explains the glass cone beakers, E-ware, North African red slip ware, and so forth found on coastal sites. What commodities were in these vessels is a puzzle, and what was given in exchange for them is a bigger puzzle, but the fact that these ships could sail at all shows that Ireland was not a Dark Age Somalia.
TP -
Message 31
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 6th June 2011
My money would be on north of Hadrian's Wall for Valentia and the Traprian Law hoard a clue to why it's recovery was considered a minor triumph and not a military triumph.
Could the Great Conspiracy have been coordinated?
Ammianus Marcellinus A.D. 368 28, 3, 8.
"During these outstanding events the areani, who had gradually become corrupt, were removed by him [Theodosius] from their positions. This was an organization founded in early times, of which I have already said something in the history of Constans. It was clearly proved against them that they had been bribed with quantities of plunder, or promises of it, to reveal to the enemy from time to time what was happening on our side. Their official duty was to range backwards and forwards over long distances with information for our generals about disturbances among neighbouring nations." -
Message 32
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 6th June 2011
Hi Haesten
There is a theory that Ammianus's distaste for the panagyric approach to historiography was prompted by the success and popularity of the style represented by Pacatus's oration on Theodosius. Pacatus felt free to invent and distort fact in order to keep "true" to his philosophical or moral standpoint, one in which Theodosius's life played primarily the role of illustration, not subject, and the point of the exercise was to use the emperor's biographical details to justify the "real" narrative being presented, Pacatus's own rhetoric. It made for great eulogy but poor history.
There is a sense from what we have left to us that Ammianus made a conscious effort to strip the narrative of Pacatus's excesses in this regard and attempt to construct an appreciation of Theodosius based on more dependable data. Unfortunately, if this is true, then he did rather too thorough a job of it - unfortunately for us - leaving us with a probability that there was once perhaps a middle ground of more complete and dependable factual data now no longer extant.
All of which makes the interpretation of what constituted "piracy" in the mind of either author all the more difficult to ascertain now. Or "Saxon" for that matter. -
Message 33
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 6th June 2011
Hi Haesten
Your location of Valentia is possible but, I would submit, less likely for reasons stated earlier. Whether the Traprain Law hoard could be involved in any way is very doubtful.
We know that Valentia was in existence by AD 367 and could (under a different name) be an even older foundation, although not perhaps by much. Attempts to date the Traprain Law treasure have placed it no earlier than the very late 4th century and possibly as late as the mid-5th. Two of the coins are clipped siliquae of Honorius and Arcadius, say 393 or later. Dating the hacked silver is a matter for experts, which I definitely am not, but one of the military belt buckles has been identified as typical military equipment for 5th C Roman troops in the Diocese of Ilyria.
What a barbarian ex-Roman soldier (or soldiers) are doing in southern 'Scotland' in the mid-5th C is an extraordinarily difficult question but one whose answer must be sought in the Age of Vortigern rather than the Age of Theosdosius.
Regards,
TP -
Message 34
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 6th June 2011
Do you not think that the life of St Patrick sheds some valuable light on sea movements in the 5th century?
Μύ
I do indeed - even if the account is not actually true it was conceived in a manner which would make it credible to its audience. I would even cite the story of Niall of the Nine Hostages - absolutely contemporary in age - as further corroboration on the same basis.
Interesting stuff - the forensic deduction of probable fact from myth - though probably not totally germaine to the thread except in that it at least raises a question about whether "pirate" is a term which should really be used at all in relation to what the Irish, or for that matter anyone else, was up to at the time. -
Message 35
Posted by Mak Wilson (U14905435) on Sunday, 19th June 2011
My response to this question is so long that I'd like to point you to my four part blog on the subject. Hope you can get the chance to read it and comments.
-
Message 36
Posted by Mak Wilson (U14905435) on Sunday, 19th June 2011
My response to this question is so long that I'd like to point you to my four part blog on the subject. Hope you can get the chance to read it and comments.
-
Message 37
Posted by Mak Wilson (U14905435) on Sunday, 19th June 2011
My response to this question is so long that I'd like to point you to my four part blog on the subject. Hope you can get the chance to read it and comments.
-
Message 38
Posted by Mak Wilson (U14905435) on Sunday, 19th June 2011
My response to this question is so long that I'd like to point you to my four part blog on the subject. Hope you can get the chance to read it and comments.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.