Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:37:20.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Date of the ‘Barbarian Conspiracy’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

R. C. Blockley
R. C. Blockley
Affiliation:
Dept. of Classics, Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a paper in Britannia (v (1974), 303–9) Roger Tomlin addressed himself to the chronology of the barbarica conspiratio against the British diocese and the Roman response to it, which are described by Ammianus Marcellinus (xxvii. 8 and xxviii. 3). The traditional view, based upon Ammianus, is that news of the barbarian attack reached the Emperor Valentinian I no earlier than the end of August 367, while he was on his way from Amiens to Trier. After the speedy despatch and recall, in turn, of the generals Severus and Jovinus, Theodosius, the father of the future Emperor Theodosius I, was sent to Britain, arriving there in the spring of 368. He crushed the invaders in two campaigns in 368 and 369 returning to court at the end of the latter year. Against this view Tomlin argues that news of the attack reached the Imperial court in June 367, that Theodosius crossed to Britain before late September, reached London before the end of the same year, and reconquered and restored the rest of the country by the end of 368.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 11 , November 1980 , pp. 223 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © R. C. Blockley 1980. 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 Claudian, iv Cos. Hon. 26–33. While the phrase Caledoniis posuit qui castra pruinis does appear to suggest that Theodosius pushed into the Highlands, the words maduerunt Saxone fuso/Orcades probably do not indicate that he attacked the Orkneys but merely point to the supposed origin of the defeated Saxons (who were at the time apparently attacking the Gallicani tractus, xxvii. 8. 5)Google Scholar. For Claudian also says incaluit Pictorum sanguine Thule, which no-one has ever taken to show that Theodosius attacked Norway (or Iceland) or that the Picts had set out from there.

2 Seeck, O., ‘Zur Chronologie und Quellenkritik des Ammianus Marcellinus’, Hermes xviii (1883), 481 ff.Google Scholar

3 I prefer the former meaning, since while Ammianus is quite fond of uariatio, he seems here to be carefully distinguishing the fate of Fullofaudes from that of Nectaridus (the word used is circumuentum, which in Ammianus can mean ‘surrounded’, e.g. xix. 5. 5; xxi. 4. 8). It is usually assumed that Fullofaudes was killed and that Dulcitius, whom Ammianus calls ducem scientia rei militaris insignem (xxvii. 8. 10) was summoned to replace him as dux Britanniarum. But Ammianus often used dux loosely, and Dulcitius could have replaced Nectaridus.

4 Cp. Breeze, D. J. and Dobson, B., Hadrian's Wall (London, 1976), 222.Google Scholar

5 Cp. Jeep, L., ‘Die verlorenen Bücher des Ammianus Marcellinus’, Rhein. Mus. xliii (1888), 60 f, 66 f.Google Scholar

6 On the enemy penetration of the south and the damage, which seems not to have been too severe, see Frere, Sheppard, Britannia (London 1978), 396–7.Google Scholar

7 xxviii. 3. 2: uariis gentibus…, quas insolentia nutriente securitate, aggredi Romanas res inflammabat. But Ammianus could be here saying that the failure of the Romans to carry out pre-emptive raids into Scotland and Ireland had encouraged the barbarians to attack in the first place.

8 xxviii. 3. 7: prouinciam…, ita reddiderat statui pristino, ut…, et Valentia deinde uocaretur arbitrio principis. I agree with the argument of J. G. F. Hind, ‘The British “Provinces” of Valentia and the Orcades’, Historia xxiv (1975), 101 ff.Google Scholar, that the Notitia Dignitatum is in error and there never was a separate British province of Valentia.

9 Frere, op. cit., 352–9. The extent of this damage is questioned by Breeze, D. J. and Dobson, B., ‘Hadrian's Wall: some Problems’, Britannia iii (1972), 200–6.Google Scholar