Indication of how it might be done.

The later years

For a long time it was taken as axiomatic that Roman Britain

came to an end in ad 410; for those requiring precise dates, it

appeared to suffice. It is now understood that the evidence upon

which this was based – a reference in the late historian, Zosimus –

had been incorrectly interpreted; the rescript of the emperor

Honorius, giving instructions for the institution of local measures

for self-defence, was addressed not to the Britons, but to the Bruttii

of southern Italy. As a result, we lose a firm date and are provided

with an opportunity to view the decline of direct Roman influence

In Britain not as an event, but as a process, extending over a

considerable period. Although the nature of archaeological evidence

for the later fourth and fifth centuries does not always facilitate

precise interpretations, it does allow us to glimpse important

cultural transformations which were occurring during this period

and which represent in fragmentary form, at least, the reality of

the later years of Roman Britain.

The processes which eventually put unstoppable pressures on

the territorial integrity of the Roman empire were already underway

at the turn of the second and third centuries, when Septimius

Severus and his entourage were in Britain attempting to find a

permanent solution to the problems of the northern frontier (see

Chapter 3). Their work appears to have been successful to the extent that the northern frontier-area was evidently peaceful for

most of the third century; indeed, the linear-barrier itself probably

fell into decay, and the manning-levels at some, at least, of

the forts were probably allowed to fall. Just as significant was the

decision, taken early in the third century, to transform areas of

northern Cumbria into the civitas Carvetiorum, with a territorium in

the Solway Plain and Eden valley and a centre at Carlisle. Such

demilitarisation, even if only partial, indicates the prevalence of

peace and prosperity, since local leaders will have needed to be

wealthy enough to take on the burdens of local government; we

may assume that this prosperity had sprung from lucrative contracts

to supply the frontier-army with agricultural and other

produce.

Although Britain was probably less susceptible to the kind of

population pressures which affected the European provinces, there

clearly were, as time went on, growing anxieties concerning the

activities of Picts (from the north), Saxons (from the east), and

Scots (Scotti, from the west). Immediately, however, in the third

century, the most pressing problems were those which were

Internal to the empire – the political ‘muscle-flexing’ of the army,

anarchy and inflation. The physical state of the coinage gives a

clear indication of financial and economic problems – particularly

the demonetising of lower denominations and the introduction of

new higher denominations; by the middle of the century, inflation

was so serious that the official mints could not cope with the

demand for coinage, and the consequent local copying to supplement

supplies produced huge numbers of ‘barbarous radiates’,

often of very poor quality. In such circumstances, we may assume

that many people will have returned to a system of barter, as so

many coins were probably needed to make the simplest of

purchases.

Because of changes introduced by Septimius Severus, it had

become much easier for ordinary soldiers to achieve promotion

through the ranks to very senior positions; such was the origin of

‘soldier-emperors’ whose rise in the middle of the third century

caused the anarchy which helped to fragment the empire and,

because of the bribery involved, to undermine the economy.

Between ad 260 and 273, Britain joined other western provinces

in a breakaway movement known as Imperium Galliarum (‘the Empire of the Gauls’), which had its own emperors and other

officials. There is, however, evidence which indicates how damaging

the pressures were on society in general and on personal

relationships caused by the divided loyalties which were the

inevitable consequence of such breakaway movements.

Clearly, the preoccupation with internal feuding in the empire

meant that less attention was paid to matters of external defence

and that more often than not people who were forced across the

frontiers into Roman provinces were tolerated and allowed to

settle. In Britain, there was certainly some Germanic settlement,

although measures were put in hand to strengthen the south-east

coast with some new forts, which in time developed into the

system known as the ‘Saxon Shore’.

The rebellion in the west was brought to an end in ad 273 by

the emperor Aurelian (ad 270–275), who was himself followed by

slightly more stable rulers who began the business of imperial

reconstruction. This process reached a significant stage with the

accession of Diocletian in ad 284, whose changes within the

administration of Britain have already been noticed (see Chapter

4). An effect of these in Britain, however, was to prompt another

rebellion; Diocletian in a sense institutionalised the anarchy by

splitting the empire into two, and appointing Maximian to control

the western provinces. Carausius, evidently a naval commander

in Gaul and Britain, took this as an invitation: he first of

all declared himself the third emperor, issuing coins with

the legend ‘Carausius and his Brothers’. His ‘brothers’ (that is,

Diocletian and Maximian) did not agree to share power with him,

thus leaving Carausius as a rebel. He held power in Britain

between ad 287 and 293 and was then murdered and succeeded

by Allectus, who maintained his independence until his defeat by

Constantius Chlorus in ad 296.

The value for Britain of this period of rebellion lay in the fact

that some attention was given to the specific defence needs of the

province, particularly with regard to the movement of people

from Europe. Work on the Saxon Shore continued with the first

signs of a new military architecture, which appears to have been

modelled upon town-walls in Gaul. The traditional Roman fort,

with the shape of a playing-card, had effectively been a policestation,

which housed men whose principal job had been located outside their forts. The new forts, such as Pevensey and Portchester,

were equipped with high, thick walls and external bastions,

which were presumably used for mounting pieces of heavy artillery

for the repelling of assailants. The internal arrangements of these

forts are often difficult to discern, but they clearly played the part

of defended strongpoints – that is, they were rather more akin to

medieval castles, which to some extent they resembled.

There was much difference between individual forts: most were

square or rectangular, though Pevensey took the shape of an