Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:24:10.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vortigern and the End of Roman Britain*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

John H. Ward
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The story of the ill-fated British leader, Vortigern, is familiar to most serious students of the history of Britain. This is true whether it be viewed as a last melancholy episode in the Roman period or as an initial and important chapter in the Saxon era. But to appreciate fully the significance of the events of this tempestuous time of transition one should have a clear idea of just what Vortigern was and what he was not. In this short study I shall consider successively a number of important questions about Vortigern, finishing with a rapid reassessment of his role in the final collapse of Roman Britain.

Type
Research Article
Information
Britannia , Volume 3 , November 1972 , pp. 277 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © John H. Ward 1972. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Gildas, , De Excidio et Conqnestu Britanniae, 23.Google Scholar

2 The Celtic Ver-tigernos seems originally to have had the meaning ‘high lord’, or ‘great prince’. See Chadwick's, H. M. article ‘Vortigern’ in Chadwick et al., Studies in Early British History (1954) (SEBH), pp. 26-7Google Scholar, as well as Bromwich, R., Trioedd Ynys Prydein (TYP), p. 392.Google Scholar

3 For example in op. cit., chapters 30 and 32.

4 The letter figures in chapter 20 while the invitation to the Saxons is described in chapter 23.

5 Britanniae usque ad hoc tempus variis cladibus eventibusque latae in dicionem Saxonum rediguntur under the nineteenth year of Theodosius II as senior emperor (441-2) in a chronicle ending with 452. Britanniae a Romanis amissae in dicionem Saxonum cedunt under the sixteenth year of the joint reign of Theodosius and Valentinian (440-1) in a chronicle ending with 511. See MGH Chron. Min. i, pp. 660–1. The letter to Aetius cannot be dated before early 446, the year of his third consulship.Google Scholar

6 Historia Britonum, 47.

7 R. Borius. Introduction to Constance de Lyon — Vie de Saint Germain d'Auxerre, p. 106.

8 The battles were those fought by Vortimir who is clearly represented as dying before his father. Historia Britonum, 44-5.

9 It seems clear that the victory of Ambrosius is the turning point alluded to in chapter 20. The other possibility, Badon, must be rejected as being the last, rather than the first, British victory.

10 This interpolation purports to date the Adventus Saxonum to the consulate of Felix and Taurus (428) but it (a) fits none of the other computations and (b) is clearly based on an Easter table differing by one year from that used for the main computus. It also carelessly substitutes incamatione for the intended passione.

11 ‘Decius and Valerian’, a simple corruption of Dexicrates and Volusianus who are omitted from some medieval lists. Since Dexicrates' name was never published in the West it seems unlikely that 503 was the year of composition of the computus. Perhaps the battle of Badon was intended. For Dexicrates see Degrassi, I Fasti Consolari dell'Impero Romano, sub anno 503.

12 This particular alternative is made less likely, while the plausible theory that A.D. 503 in the computus represented the battle of Badon is made more so, by examination of the Annales Cambriae. The interval that seems to have originally existed between the first annal and Badon was from Bede's Adventus date of 449 (annus i, 8 years before the Easter reform of 457) to 517 (annus Ixxii, 5 years before a year containing the death of St. Bridget in Feb. of 523 which was at the end of old-style 522), or a total of 69 (not 74) years by inclusive count. Apparently 3 extra blank annals intruded between the two events before the decennial labels, which are unique to the Harleian MS., became part of the text. In the Harleian MS. the Annales followed immediately on the computus itself.

13 425, 426, 430, 435.

14 Morris (‘Dark Age Dates’, in Jarrett & Dobson, Britain and Rome (1966), p. 167) arrives at the same date, but then wants to correct all fifth-century dates in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle by 20 years. The correction should be 19 years (430-449) and should apply only to the early Kentish annals and to those Wessex annals relating to the Jutish areas of the Isle of Wight and south Hampshire. Such corrections would instantly clear up the problem of annals repeated 19 years apart noted by Stenton (Anglo-Saxon England (1943), pp. 22-3), without distorting the rest of the Chronicle.

15 Cyngen, king of Powys (d. 855) who seems to have been 14th in line of descent from Vortigern. See P. C. Bartrum, Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts, HG 22 & 27, JC 18.

16 Bartrum, op. cit., p. 1.

17 Zosimus, iv, 35.

18 Bartrum, op. cit., sub ref.: ‘Macsen Wledic’.

19 Ep. xl.

20 J. Gwyn (ed.) The Book of Armagh, fol. 31b et seq. See also a discussion by H. and N. Chadwick in SEBH, pp. 27, 35-8.

21 As do the sources of the period, I will refer to the ancestors of the modern Irish as ‘Scots’. When, however, the reference is geographical or linguistic only the modern term will be used.

22 Reigned c. 428-462. His wife was also British.

23 He was a child (puer), but was old enough to converse with Lomman in the British language.

24 Historia Britonum, 32-35.

25 Bartrum, op. cit., JC 16 & 18. The Harleian genealogies (HG) are unique in reversing the order of Cadell and Cattigern. This aberration probably is linked with their studied suppression of any connection between Vortigern and the Powys dynasty.

26 The number, given as 9, goes back to the oldest MS. (Ghartres, ninth century) and thus may belong to the original tradition. Yet the form in which it is given, quorum numerus erat novem, leaves open the possibility that we really have a gloss based on a knowledge of the size of Cadell's eventual total brood.

27 Vortimir's third battle (where Cattigern was killed) must correspond to Hengest's first victory (where Horsa was killed and after which he took the title of king) and is most logically to be equated with the continental chroniclers' notices of the beginning of Saxon rule in 441 (see note 5). His fourth and last battle then falls a year later and he died soon thereafter. See Historia Britonum, 44; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ann. 455, 456/7.

28 Bartrum, op. cit., ByS 44 + 45 and notes. Bartrum claims that there were two Ynyr Gwents, but the story he cites from Buchedd Beuno seems originally to have been about Maelgwn Gwynedd whose notices in Gildas also fit it. This leaves us one Ynyr Gwent, Madrun's husband (see TYP 69 and notes).

29 TYP, p. 412.

30 Historia Britonum, 39.

31 Ibid., 48. See also N. Chadwick, ‘A Note on Faustus and Riocatus’ in SEBH, pp. 257-8 for an explanation of the insertion.

32 Historia Britonum, 48.Google Scholar

33 Dictionnnire d'Histoire et de Geographie Ecclesiastiques, Tome 16, col. 731-3. Faustus was known to be a Briton by his contemporary Sidonius Apollinaris (Ep. ix, 9) and received a visit from a Riocatus who may have been the grandson of Vortigern and son of Pascentius listed in Bartrum as Riagath (JC 14) and in Historia Britonum, 49, as Briacat. The identification is discussed in Chadwick, N., ‘A Note on Faustus and Riocatus’ in SEBH, pp. 254-63.Google Scholar

34 Hronwen was Hengest's daughter for whom Vortigern developed a passion that served to strengthen Hengest's hand. Hisloria Britonum, 37; TYP, 37R and 59.

35 Historia Britonum, 49.

36 Perhaps the earliest version of the genealogy ended with Glevi, meaning that Vortigern's grandfather was ‘of Glevum’. Under Celtic influence this could easily have been corrupted into Glovi and taken for a proper name.

37 Bartrum, op. cit., JC 15.

38 S. S. Frere, Britannia (1967), p. 220. Glovi might be profitably compared with the Frankish name, Chlodovech (Clovis).

39 The Welsh form appears as Guitolin in the Historia Britonum, 49, and as Gwdoloeu in Bartrum, op. cit., JC 15.

40 Frere, op. cit., p. 346.

41 Textual variants of this name include Guitaul (accepted by Mommsen), Guithaul, Guitataul, Guital, and several more showing similarity to his father's name. JC 15 (Bartrum, op. cit.) gives Gwidawl. RIB 370 is a Roman tombstone from Caerleon bearing the name.

42 Frere, op. cit., p. 347.

43 Ibid.; Ammianus Marcellinus, xxviii, 3, 8. I must differ from S. S. Frere (p. 352) in that I regard this occasion rather than the restoration by the elder Theodosius as the proper time to place the inferred Roman commission to Padarn Pesrut whom I regard as a possible leader of the Areani (or Areani). Though I agree that Cunedda's migration should be placed shortly before 430, his birth must fall c. 370 since he already had at least one gandson before the move (Bartrum, op. cit., HG 32). This would place Padarn's birth c. 310 or a few years earlier and makes him rather old for a new commission in 370. This dating of Padarn is con-firmed by the name of his father, Tacitus, named (unless his father was a student of obscure historical prose) after the emperor who reigned briefly in 276, just one generation before my date for Padarn. This connection of Padarn with the Areani and their subsequent disgrace also fits in with his son Aeternus's lack of the epithet ‘redcloak’, and with Aeternus being the first in over a century not to give his son a Roman name. Morris's dating of Tacitus to a floruit of 368 (op. cit. (note 14), p. 150) merely compounds the difficulties of Prof. Frere's chronology by one more generation.

44 This was Gratianus Funarius, father of the future Emperor Valentinian I. See Ammianus Marcellinus, xxx, 7, 3; and Frere, op. cit. (note 38), p. 347.

45 Ammianus Marcellinus, xx, 1, 2.

46 Ibid., xxvi, 4, 5.

47 Ibid., xxvii, 8.

48 Ibid., xxviii, 3, 3-6. The conspiracy must have been rather extensive since Theodosius declined to press the investigation once the ringleaders had been brought to task. This is but one more symptom of the extent of the demoralization.

49 Bartrum, op. cit., HG 5 (Cluim).

50 Ibid. (Cinhil).

51 Ibid. The date is suggested by the fact that his great-great-great-grandson, Ryderch Hael, was an active ruler by about 570; Cynloyp's son was probably the Coroticus of St. Patrick's letter (see TYP, p. 504).

52 Bartrum, op. cit., HG I.

53 For Cunedda's date see note 43.

54 Rome appears to have encountered serious difficulties in reasserting her authority over Britain. The Historia Britonum records three sets of duces lost before the Britons relented and invited a first restoration due to fear of barbarians. Gildas agrees that Rome's return was at the request of the Britons rather than automatic, and Claudian does not celebrate the rescue of Britain until a good 10 years after the death of Maximus. The Welsh historical triads add to this picture by making Maximus’ son, Owein (Eugenius), his vicar in Britain, while a popular tradition recalled a battle between Owein and an invader fought with steel balls (an allusion to the Roman ballista?) in which both were killed (see TYP, pp. 23-4 and 477-8).

55 Dated to c. 360-380 by S. S. Frere, Britannia (1967), p. 333.

56 Pelagius was born in the early 350's and was raised in south-east Britain. See Myres, J. N. L., ‘Pelagius and the End of Roman Rule in Britain’, JRS 1 (1960), p. 21.Google Scholar

57 Such is the general conclusion of the article cited in note 56.

58 See note 33.

59 The point was made by Myres, op. cit., p. 35, n. 98.

60 Geoffrey, Historia Regum Britanniae, 6, 2. Geoffrey is not to be counted as authoritative but he probably had some reason for using this name for an ecclesiastical character.

61 Historia Britonum, 47.

62 Bartrum, op. cit., HG 2 (Aircol); JC 12, 13 (Aircol); ABT 18a (Aergul).

63 Prosper Tiro, Epitoma Chronicon, 1301 (A.D. 429). The very successful preaching of Agricola was the immediate cause of Germanus' first trip to Britain.

64 Some of the Saxon Bretwaldas may have claimed sway over larger areas but this was often ephemeral and usually through hereditary sub-kings of other dynasties, eager to limit themselves to lip service when-ever possible.

65 Gildas, op. cit., 14-18.

66 Historia Britonum, 30.

67 Not. Occ., vii, 153-156 and 199-205. See also vi, 59-60.

68 A. H. M. Jones' suggestion (History ufthe Later Roman Empire, App. 11, p. 352) that sections v and vi were kept in order to record precedence is untenable because both sections agree perfectly with their insignia (arrays of coloured shields) in order of units. If these lists were ever used to record precedence changes the entire insignia must have been redrawn for each such change, a ridiculously inefficient practice in what was, after all, a professional administrative service. The discrepancies cited by Jones are just as well explained as the result of recording transfers subsequent to 408 in section vii without regard to rank of units.

69 Primani Iuniores, Equites Catafractarii Iuniores, Equites Scutarii Aureliaci, Equites Stablesiani, Equites Syri.

70 Victores Iuniores Britanniciani, Secundani Iuniores, Equites Taifali. The first two listed in v and elsewhere in vii without the last adjective; the Taifali had three adjectives in vi, split between this and another unit in vii.

71 Equites Honoriani Seniores, also listed twice in vii.

72 In the article ‘Notitia Dignitatum’, in JRS x (1920), pp. 131–54. He was misled by the Eastern Notitia but his conclusion about the Western was sound.Google Scholar

73 Historia Britonum, 32; Bartrum, op. cit., DSB 8.

74 Bartrum, op. cit., DSB 8.

75 The burning of Wroxeter, detected by archaeologists, might well be referred to Benli/Banadyl's death as described in Historia Britonum, 32-4. Wroxeter would be a logical capital of a western province, especially when Scottish pressure had made towns closer to the coast unsafe.

76 Historia Britonum, 37.

77 Ibid., 37-8.

78 Ibid., 43. The intervening matter comes from other sources concerned with Germanus and Ambrosius rather than with the Saxons.

79 Historia Britonum 31.

80 The Romans would be most likely to intend to inhabit the island from end to end solito more.

81 Pointed out by Hawkes, G. F. C. in ‘The Jutes of Kent’ in Dark Age Britain (Ed. D. B. Harden)Google Scholar and by Myres, , JRS 1 (1960), p. 35. I differ, however, in associating this strategic consideration with Vortigern's original break with Rome rather than (as does Myres) with his anxiety over the appeal to Aetius 16 years later.Google Scholar

82 Morris (op. cit. (note 14), p. 163) suggests that Irish annals recalling ‘the first booty of the Saxons from Ireland’ in 434 refer to raids by Vortigern's Frisian/Saxon allies (based at Dumfries?). The purpose would have been to forestall Irish raids and the date fits extremely well for the second or third wave of allies.

83 A minor point in favour of this interpretation is Bede's placing of his excerpt from Gildas (beginning Recedente a Brittania Romano exercitu) at a point in his major chronicle corresponding to c. 431 rather than the 446 demanded by the ‘letter to Aetius’ contained therein.

84 Gonstantine III, whose rule in Britain was ended by civitas leaders (Zosimus, vi, 5).

85 Historia Britonum, 43.

86 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, sub anno 455.

87 See note 5.

88 Historia Britonum, 44.

89 Ibid., 46.

90 Ibid. 35.

91 The war did not end abruptly with the rise of Ambrosius but, as implied by Gildas, continued under succeeding leaders until the battle of Badon, which was fought long after Ambrosius must have died.