Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:38:46.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constantius Chlorus' Invasion of Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

D. E. Eichholz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Several versions of Constantius Chlorus' invasion and recovery of Britain in A.D. 296 have appeared in recent decades. These accounts agree in some respects, but differ widely in others, and the whole episode seems to need further study.

The literary evidence for the campaign is mostly contained in the contemporary panegyric addressed to Constantius by an unknown author and ascribed to Eumenius (Panegyrici Latini, ed. Baehrens, Incert. Pan. VIII, 11–19). To this may be added Incert. Pan. VI, 5; Aurelius Victor, De Caes. 39, 42; Eutropius 9, 22; and Orosius 7, 25.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 1-2 , November 1953 , pp. 41 - 46
Copyright
Copyright ©D. E. Eichholz 1953. 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 See in particular C. Oman, England before the Norman Conquest (1910), 146–8; Webb, P. H., Roman Imperial Coinage (ed. Mattingly, H. and Sydenham, E. A.) V, 2 (1933), 429–430 Google Scholar; H. M. D. Parker, A History of the Roman World, A.D. 138–337 (1935), 231; C. H. V. Sutherland, Coinage and Currency in Roman Britain (1937), 68–9; Mattingly, H., Camb. Anc. Hist. XII (1939), 232 Google Scholar; Collingwood, R. G., Roman Britain (Oxford History of England), 2nd ed. (1941), 277 Google Scholar. See also the Oxford Class. Dict. s.v. ‘Constantius’ (H. Mattingly), and P-W, s.v. ‘Allectus’, ‘Constantius’ (1) (O. Seeck).

2 Hereafter referred to as ‘VIII’, followed by the numbers of the chapter and section. In 1949 the speech was edited with an introduction and translation by Édouard Galletier as no. IV of vol. I of Panégyriques latins (Budé). Chapters 14–17 of the speech appear in R. W. Moore, The Romans in Britain, 88–92; so also the passage from Eutropius (P. 89).

3 According to VIII, 14, 4, the sea was stormy when Constantius left Boulogne. Asclepiodotus had rough seas and stormy weather with rain. The wind was not blowing directly from astern and was therefore not SSE. These details suggest typically wet weather coming from the SW, so that mist and low cloud were perhaps more likely than fog.

4 See Galletier, o.c, XXV–XXVI.

5 Oman (o.c, 146) may be right in maintaining that Allectus could not risk putting his legionaries in line. But it is also possible that the troops lost at Boulogne were legionaries, and that he now had none to spare.

6 Oman in his note says ‘avoiding’, but this is a subterfuge. Seeck (P-W, s.v. ‘Allectus’) states that Allectus retreated before Constantius, but does not mention where this happened.

7 Galletier, o.c., 94, n. 3, states that Allectus must have awaited Constantius on the English coast [sic] adjacent to the coast of Gaul, but does not discuss the point.

8 For Dover, and Lympne, , see P-W, s.v. ‘Saxonicum Litus’ (Haverfield), 331–3Google Scholar, and Vict. Co. Hist. Kent III, 13, 42 ff., 55. For Richborough, , see Fourth Report on the Excavations … at Richborough (Soc. Ant. Research Reports XVI, 1949), 66 Google Scholar.

9 Webb (o.c., 429) calls this ‘an erroneous rumour’, possibly because Incert. Pan. VI, 5, 4, tells us that Constantius left for Britain on a calm day, a statement for which there is another explanation to be discussed later. He may also have supposed that Asclepiodotus must have left first because he had further to go. But the writer of Pan. VIII would hardly have written ‘prior’ so emphatically of Constantius' departure (VIII, 14, 4) had this been untrue. This at least was something that could safely be placed to Constantius' credit. It is true that Aurelius Victor, l.c., writes: ‘Asclepiodoto … praemisso,’ but this may merely mean that Asclepiodotus landed first, as was indeed the case.

10 It is at this point, as we shall see, and not earlier, that the Arras medal enters the story. The medal was first published in Arethuse 1 (1924), 45–52 Google Scholar. See also Toynbee, J., JRS 14 (1924), 155–6Google Scholar, and Webb, o.c., 430.

11 According to Galletier, the forces that reached London by way of the Thames belonged to Asclepiodotus' division (o.c., 75 and 96, n. 3). But it is scarcely conceivable that ships from the Seine strayed so far afield. Galletier has no comment to make on the movements of Constantius and his fleet.

12 See above, footnote 10.

13 Galletier (o.c., 77) writes: ‘De la composition on peut dire qu'elle se contente d'être chronologique.’

14 Of course, the author of Pan. VI, writing some years later, may be drawing on his imagination. Yet the Gallic panegyrists, thanks possibly to their environment, take a keen interest in the weather. Besides the two passages cited above, see Pan. X, 12, 4–end.

15 The final remark of Pan. VI, 5,4: ‘ita peruectus ut non comitata ilium sit, sed praestolata uictoria,’ conveys a tactful hint that, when Constantius landed, all the fighting was over.

16 Sutherland, o.c., 68–9.

17 The Blackmoor hoard, together with those found at Bitterne (near Southampton) and Crondall (between Farnham and Odiham), may roughly indicate the area threatened by Asclepiodotus in his advance. See Sutherland, o.c., 68.

18 VIII, 16, 3, omnes enim illos, ut audio, campos atque colles. …