2 Irish Invasions of Britain
(1) Pacification and fortification of Britain by Theodosius, A.D. 368, 369. Chief source: Ammianus, 27, 8, and 28, 3, who mentions five enemies; Picti and Attacotti; Scotti; Franci and Saxones (27, 8, 5). Two passages in Claudian illustrate the campaigns of Theodosius. In the Panegyric on the Third Consulship of Honorius (A.D. 395) we read, vv. 54-6:—
Ille leues Mauros nec falso nomine Pictos
Edomuit Scottumque uago mucrone secutus
Fregit Hyperboreas remis audacibus undas,
and in the Panegyric on the Fourth Consulship (A.D. 397), vv. 28 sqq.:—
debellatorque Britanni
Litoris ac pariter Boreae uastator et Austri.
Quid rigor aeternus, caeli quid frigora prosunt
Ignotumque fretum? maduerunt Saxone fuso
Orcades; incaluit Pictorum sanguine Thyle;
Scottorum cumulos fleuit glacialis Hiuerne.
The first of these passages suggests that Theodosius pursued the Scots across the sea, or at least made a naval demonstration in the Irish Channel, and this is perhaps supported by the passage in Pacatus, Panegyric, c. 5: attritam pedestribus praeliis Britanniam referam? Saxo consumptus bellis naualibus offeretur. redactum ad paludes suas Scotum loquar?
(2) Troubles brought on Britain through the revolt of Maximus, and pacification by Stilicho. Zosimus (source: doubtless Eunapius), 4, 35: the soldiers, having crowned Maximus, παραχρῆμα τὸν Ὠκεανὸν ναυσὶ διαβάντες landed at the mouth of the Rhine. Cp. Orosius 7, 34, 9. (While Zosimus imputes the blame of the insurrection to Maximus, Orosius says that he was created Emperor inuitus propemodum.) The rebellion was brought to an end by the death of Maximus in A.D. 388 (Idatius and Prosper Tiro, ad ann.), so that it cannot have been before that year that the Britannic legions returned to Britain.
Now the only contemporary evidence as to the fortunes of Britain during the fifteen years which followed the revolt of Maximus consists of two passages of Claudian: (1) In Eutropium, i. 393 (composed A.D. 399, June to Sept.)—
fracto secura Britannia Picto, where the context implies that this was accomplished during the reign of Honorius (te principe, 391); (2) De Consulatu Stilichonis, ii. 247 sqq. (composed end of A.D. 399):—
Inde Caledonio uelata Britannia monstro,
Ferro picta genas, cuius uestigia uerrit
Caerulus Oceanique aestum mentitur amictus:
“Me quoque uicinis pereuntem gentibus” inquit
“Muniuit Stilicho, totam cum Scottus Hiuernen
Mouit et infesto spumauit remige Tethys.
Illius effectum curis ne tela timerem
Scottica, ne Pictum tremerem, ne litore toto
Prospicerem dubiis uenturum Saxona uentis.”
The second passage evidently suits the situation in which Britain would have almost inevitably found herself on the departure of Maximus with the legions. Two questions arise. In what year did Stilicho take measures for the defence of Britain? and did he visit the island in person? Keller supposes that the date was A.D. 385 and denies that he went to Britain (Stilicho, p. 17). As to the latter point it is possible that Keller may be right. The phrase illius effectum curis suggests this conclusion; if Stilicho had visited Britain and provided for its security on the spot, Claudian would perhaps have used some more vivid and graphic phrase, leaving the reader in no doubt that his hero had appeared on the scene of danger.
Before criticising Keller’s date, A.D. 385, it will be well to define the reference in the other passage, which distinctly states that the defeat of the Picts which is mentioned, was accomplished while Honorius was Emperor. This might mean one of two things. It might mean: since Honorius succeeded his father as sole Augustus in the west (Jan. A.D. 395); or it might mean: since Honorius was created Augustus (Jan. A.D. 393). The words cannot assuredly be interpreted of the Caesarship of Honorius (he appears with the title Caesar in his first consulship, A.D. 386). In the absence of any other counter-indication, we are, I think, fully entitled to assume that te principe bears its most obvious and natural meaning, and that the defeat of the Picts occurred while Honorius (and not his father Theodosius) was solely responsible for the government of the west. We may therefore assign as limits to the date of this event, Jan. 395-June 399 A.D..
Now Keller has made the mistake of associating these two passages of Claudian closely together. While the first emphasises a defeat of the Picts and does not refer to the other foes of Britain, the second describes the serious dangers which beset the island on three sides, and states that measures of defence were taken by Stilicho, but makes no mention of an actual defeat of the Picts, or indeed of any other enemy. There is therefore no reason for supposing that both passages refer precisely to the same events; and it may be argued with some force that if Claudian was thinking of the same achievements he would not have omitted, in rehearsing the military successes in the reign of Honorius, to mention the Scot and the Saxon as well as the Pict, especially as his description in the second passage conveys the idea that the Scot and the Saxon were the most formidable.
We may therefore refer the events mentioned in the poem “On Stilicho’s Second Consulship” to a date prior to A.D. 395, and may return to consider and reject Keller’s suggestion of A.D. 385. It does not need much consideration, for it is wholly inconsistent with the political situation. After Gratian’s death in A.D. 383 Maximus was recognised as Augustus by Theodosius (A.D. 384 or 385, cp. Schiller, Gesch. der röm. Kaiserzeit, ii. 405), who was not then in a position to advance against the usurper (Zosimus, 4, 37). From that time until he marched upon Italy in A.D. 387, there were no hostile dealings between Maximus and Theodosius. Maximus ruled over Britain, Gaul, and Spain from his headquarters at Trier, and it cannot for a moment be supposed that Theodosius or any general of his interfered in the administration of those provinces. Stilicho was a general of Theodosius,365 and he cannot possibly have had to do with Britain till after Theodosius came to the rescue of the young Valentinian in A.D. 388. Thus Keller’s date is excluded.
The true date can easily be surmised. After the execution of Maximus in summer A.D. 388 Theodosius remained in Italy, ordering the affairs of the west for the young Valentinian, and did not return to Constantinople till summer A.D. 391. No part of the Gallic Prefecture probably demanded his attention more than Britain, and we cannot be far wrong in supposing that the measures of Stilicho, recorded by Claudian, belong to these three years. As was observed, the words of Claudian rather suggest that Stilicho did not himself pass into Britain. But we may assume that Theodosius sent him into Gaul, and that from there he ordered what was necessary to be done.
It seems probable that Maximus retained in Gaul a considerable part of the Britannic army; and if so, it was doubtless one of the cares of Stilicho to restore to Britain these contingents. We may assume that from A.D. 390 two legions (IInd and VIth), if not the XXth also, were in Britain.
(3) At the end of 401 Alaric entered Italy (for the chronology see Appendix 17 to Bury’s edition of Gibbon, vol. iii.), and a legion was summoned for the defence of Italy. Claudian is again our source, De Bello Gothico, 416-8:—
Venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis
Quae Scotto dat frena truci ferroque notatas
Perlegit exanimes Picto moriente figuras.
This description of a legion which might be called upon to act against both Irish and Pict certainly suggests the legion which was stationed in the northern military district, of which the headquarters was York.366 Now in the Notitia Dignitatum, which represents the state of the civil and military service in the Empire in the first years of the fifth century, we find two legions in Britain, the VIth in the northern districts under the dux Britanniarum, the IInd in the south-eastern district under the comes litoris Saxonici per Britannias. No legion appears in the western district under the comes Britanniae. It has therefore been supposed that it was the XXth legion, stationed in the west, which was summoned to Italy; and the fact that this legion does not appear in the Notitia at all has suggested that this document was drawn up after it had left Britain, but before it had been permanently assigned to any other station. Claudian’s words need not be fatal to this theory, for the legion whose headquarters was at Chester would have to defend Britain against the Scots, and might have to defend it against Picts if they broke through the wall; and in any case the words of the poet in such a matter could not be precisely pressed. But the argument cannot be regarded as conclusive. It is perfectly possible that the XXth legion had been broken up before this time, that there were only two legions in Britain, and that it was the VIth which went to Italy. Its departure, it should be remembered, did not leave north Britain defenceless; there were large forces, cohorts, and alae, distinct from the legion. It is, moreover, possible that the British section of the Not. is of much older date.
(4) The elevation of the tyrant Constantine and his crossing into Gaul would seem to have happened in the first half of A.D. 407. This seems to follow from the account in Olympiodorus (fr. 12, ed. Müller). The second half of A.D. 406 is filled by the episodes of Constantine’s predecessors, Marcus and Gratian. Zosimus (who, in regard to the dating, misunderstood Olympiodorus, as was pointed out by Freeman367) says that the invasion of Gaul by the Vandals and their fellows was one of the causes of the rebellion in Britain (vi. 3, 1). This cannot be true, if the text is sound in the entry of Prosper Tiro, which states that the Vandals and Alans crossed the Rhine at the end of December A.D. 406.368 On the other hand, two considerations might tempt us to suspect this notice, namely, the unlikelihood of a migration in the middle of winter, and the existence of two edicts for a levée of provincials contra hostiles impetus dated April 18 and 20 at Ravenna (cp. Hodgkin, i. 739). But neither of these considerations is weighty enough to justify us in assuming without further evidence anything inconsistent with the testimony of Prosper’s MSS. In any case, the crossing of Constantine into Gaul will fall in the year A.D. 407.369 We can have no doubt that most of the soldiers in Britain accompanied Constantine when he departed to secure Gaul. But he must have left garrisons; it was important for him to retain his hold on the island if, as is probable, his corn supply depended on it. Mr. Freeman has summed up the event thus in its consequences for Britain: “Britain might be saved by a campaign in Gaul. But if this was the motive, the thought of saving Britain must soon have passed away from the minds of Constantine and his soldiers. Whether they cared for such an object or not, the course of things on the mainland soon made it hopeless for them to think of keeping up any relations with the great island. The crossing of Constantine into Gaul thus became the end of the Roman power in Britain” (p. 56).
It is possible that Constantine, before he departed, may have set up a colleague, named Carausius, to safeguard his interests in Britain. This at least is the inference drawn by Mr. A. J. Evans from a coin found at Richborough (see Numismatic Chronicle, third series, vii. 191 sqq. 1887, and App. 19 to Bury’s edition of Gibbon, vol. iii.).
(5) We may now briefly consider the account of this last period of Roman domination which is given in the Epistle of Gildas, De excidio et conquestu Britanniae. Gildas, a native of west Britain, wrote in the first half of the sixth century, and his description in cc. 13-20 represents the confused memories of that troubled time, surviving in his own day. As Mommsen370 says: “haec ut in universum rerum statum in Britannia qui tum fuit recte repraesentare videntur, sic ut narrantur magis famam incertam reddunt quam sinceram rerum gestarum narrationem.”
In this account three great devastations are distinguished, and each is attributed to the withdrawal of the Roman garrison. The first was caused by the revolt of Maximus (cc. 13, 14); the island was devastated by Scots and Picts;371 and it was not until the islanders sent an embassy with letters to Rome that “a legion,” praeteriti mali (the disloyalty of Britain) immemor, was sent to Britain, defeated the enemy, and built a wall across the island. The details are of course inaccurate, but the general fact that the rebellion of Maximus brought invasion upon Britain, and after his fall measures were taken (by Stilicho) for fortifying it, is correct.
But Gildas conceived that the “legion” when it had done its work did not remain in the island, but returned triumphantly to Rome; and then the old foes began their ravages anew (c. 16). Again an embassy repairs to Rome and begs aid; aid is again given, and the invaders are punished. The soldiers, having given good advice to the timid natives and erected new fortifications, valedicunt tamquam ultra non reversuri. Then follows the third devastation, and the famous futile message of the “groans of the Britons” is sent to Aetius.
Now this narrative does not correspond to the course of events as we gather it from the scanty contemporary sources, but we can see how it is based on actual occurrences. The third devastation, from A.D. 407, when the army finally departed, to A.D. 446 (the third consulship of Aetius), must represent truly enough the situation of Britain in those years. The circumstance that one legion was withdrawn in A.D. 402, and that the rest departed five years later, in A.D. 407, may have been the historical motive for distinguishing a second period of devastation, which would have to fall before A.D. 407.
But a further fact may underlie this tradition of a second devastation. There is no reason to reject the statement in the Irish Annals that King Niall was slain by the Ictian Sea (Sea of Wight), that is, the English Channel, while he was invading Britain, nor is there any reason to question the date assigned to his death, A.D. 405. And if the date is right, even within a year or so, then his last incursion into Britain may be regarded as the historical foundation of the “second devastation” of Gildas.
For the legend of the Slaying of Niall of the Nine Hostages (orcuin Néill nóigíallaig) see the version edited by Professor Kuno Meyer (in Otia Merseiana, ii. 84 sqq.).
The High Kings of Ireland who may have been concerned in the “Scotic” invasions of Britain from the middle of the fourth century to the year A.D. 427 were as follows, according to the Irish tradition:—
Eochaidh Muighmeadhoin, A.D. 358-366.
Crimthann, A.D. 366-379.
Niall (son of Eochaidh), A.D. 379-405.
Dathi (nephew of Niall), A.D. 405-428.