End of Roman rule in Britain

Last updated
End.of.Roman.rule.in.Britain.383.410.jpg
The Eastern and Western Roman Empire of Theodosius I in 395 Theodosius I's empire.png
The Eastern and Western Roman Empire of Theodosius I in 395

The end of Roman rule in Britain was the transition from Roman Britain to post-Roman Britain. Roman rule ended in different parts of Britain at different times, and under different circumstances. In 383, the usurper Magnus Maximus withdrew troops from northern and western Britain, probably leaving local warlords in charge. In 407, usurper Constantine III took the remaining mobile Roman soldiers to Gaul in response to the crossing of the Rhine in late 406, leaving the island a victim of barbarian attacks. Around 410, the Romano-British expelled the Roman magistrates from Britain. Roman Emperor Honorius replied to a request for assistance with the Rescript of Honorius, telling the Roman cities to see to their own defence, a tacit acceptance of temporary British self-government. Honorius was fighting a large-scale war in Italy against the Visigoths under their leader Alaric, with Rome itself under siege. No forces could be spared to protect distant Britain. Though it is likely that Honorius expected to regain control over the provinces soon, by the mid-6th century Procopius recognised that Roman control of Britannia was entirely lost.

Contents

Background

By the early 5th century, the Roman Empire could no longer defend itself against either internal rebellion or the external threat posed by Germanic tribes expanding in Western Europe. This situation and its consequences governed the eventual permanent detachment of Britain from the rest of the Empire. After a period of local self-rule the Anglo-Saxons came to southern England in the 440s.

In the late 4th century, the Empire was controlled by members of a dynasty that included the Emperor Theodosius I. This family retained political power within itself and formed alliances by intermarriage with other dynasties, at the same time engaging in internecine power struggles and fighting off outside contenders (called "usurpers") attempting to replace the ruling dynasty with one of their own. These internal machinations drained the Empire of both military and civilian resources. Many thousands of soldiers were lost in battling attempted coups by figures such as Firmus, Magnus Maximus and Eugenius.

The Empire's historical relationship with Germanic tribes was sometimes hostile, at other times cooperative, but ultimately fatal, as it was unable to prevent those tribes from assuming a dominant role in the relationship. By the early 5th century, as a result of severe losses and depleted tax income, the Western Roman Empire's military forces were dominated by Germanic troops, and Romanised Germans played a significant role in the empire's internal politics. Various Germanic and other tribes beyond the frontiers were able to take advantage of the Empire's weakened state, both to expand into Roman territory and, in some cases, to move their entire populations into lands once considered exclusively Roman, culminating in various successful migrations from 406 onwards. The crossing of the Rhine caused intense fear in Britannia, prone as it was to being cut off from the Empire by raids on the primary communications route from Italy, to Trier to the Channel coast. In the event, this was much more than just another raid.

Chronology

383–388

In 383, the Roman general then assigned to Britain, Magnus Maximus, launched his successful bid for imperial power, [1] crossing to Gaul with his troops. He killed the Western Roman Emperor Gratian and ruled Gaul and Britain as Caesar (i.e., as a "sub-emperor" under Theodosius I). 383 is the last date for any evidence of a Roman presence in the north and west of Britain, [2] perhaps excepting troop assignments at the tower on Holyhead Mountain in Anglesey and at western coastal posts such as Lancaster. These outposts may have lasted into the 390s, but they were a very minor presence. [3]

Coins dated later than 383 have been excavated along Hadrian's Wall, suggesting that troops were not stripped from it, as once thought [4] or, if they were, they were quickly returned as soon as Maximus had won his victory in Gaul. In the De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae , written c. 540, Gildas attributed an exodus of troops and senior administrators from Britain to Maximus, saying that he left not only with all of its troops, but also with all of its armed bands, governors, and the flower of its youth, never to return. [5]

Raids by Saxons, Picts, and the Scoti of Ireland had been ongoing in the late 4th century, but these increased in the years after 383. There were also large-scale permanent Irish settlements made along the coasts of Wales under circumstances that remain unclear. [6] [7] [8] [9] Maximus campaigned in Britain against both the Picts and Scoti, [10] [11] with historians differing on whether this was in the year 382 or 384 (i.e., whether the campaign was before or after he became Caesar). Welsh legend relates that before launching his usurpation, Maximus made preparations for an altered governmental and defence framework for the beleaguered provinces. Figures such as Coel Hen were said to be placed into key positions to protect the island in Maximus's absence. As such claims were designed to buttress Welsh genealogy and land claims, they should be viewed with some scepticism.

In 388, Maximus led his army across the Alps into Italy in an attempt to claim the purple. The effort failed when he was defeated in Pannonia at the Battle of the Save (in modern Croatia) and at the Battle of Poetovio (at Ptuj in modern Slovenia). He was then executed by Theodosius. [12]

389–406

With Maximus's death, Britain came back under the rule of Emperor Theodosius I until 392, when the usurper Eugenius made a bid for imperial power in the Western Roman Empire until 394 when he was defeated and killed by Theodosius. When Theodosius died in 395, his 10-year-old son Honorius succeeded him as Western Roman Emperor. The real power behind the throne, however, was Stilicho, the son-in-law of Theodosius' brother and the father-in-law of Honorius.

Britain was suffering raids by the Scoti, Saxons, and Picts and, sometime between 396 and 398, Stilicho allegedly ordered a campaign against the Picts, [13] likely a naval campaign intended to end their seaborne raids on the east coast of Britain. [14] He may also have ordered campaigns against the Scoti and Saxons at the same time, [15] but either way this would be the last Roman campaign in Britain of which there is any record. [16]

In 401 or 402 Stilicho faced wars with the Visigothic king Alaric and the Ostrogothic king Radagaisus. Needing military manpower, he stripped Hadrian's Wall of troops for the final time. [15] [17] [18] The year 402 is the last date of any Roman coinage found in large numbers in Britain, suggesting either that Stilicho also stripped the remaining troops from Britain, or that the Empire could no longer afford to pay the troops who were still there. [19] Meanwhile, the Picts, Saxons and Scoti continued their raids, which may have increased in scope. In 405, for example, Niall of the Nine Hostages is described as having raided along the southern coast of Britain. [20]

407–410

On the last day of December 406 (or, perhaps, 405 [21] ), the Alans, Vandals, and Suebi living east of Gaul crossed the Rhine, possibly when it was frozen over, and began widespread devastation. [20] [22]

As there was no effective Roman response, the remaining Roman military in Britain feared that a Germanic crossing of the Channel into Britain was next, and dispensed with imperial authority – an action perhaps made easier by the high probability that the troops had not been paid for some time. [3] Their intent was to choose a commander who would lead them in securing their future but their first two choices, Marcus and Gratian, did not meet their expectations and were killed. Their third choice was the soldier Constantine III. [23]

Gold coin of Constantine III Constantineiii.jpg
Gold coin of Constantine III

In 407, Constantine took charge of the remaining troops in Britain, led them across the Channel into Gaul, rallied support there, and attempted to set himself up as Western Roman Emperor. [20] Honorius' loyalist forces south of the Alps were preoccupied with fending off the Visigoths and were unable to put down the rebellion swiftly, giving Constantine the opportunity to extend his new empire to include Hispania. [24] [25]

In 409, Constantine's control of his empire fell apart. Part of his military forces were in Hispania, making them unavailable for action in Gaul, and some of those in Gaul were swayed against him by loyalist Roman generals. The Germans living west of the Rhine River rose against him, perhaps encouraged by Roman loyalists, [26] [27] and those living east of the river crossed into Gaul. [28] Britain, now without any troops for protection and having suffered particularly severe Saxon raids in 408 and 409, viewed the situation in Gaul with renewed alarm. Perhaps feeling they had no hope of relief under Constantine, both the Romano-Britons and some of the Gauls expelled Constantine's magistrates in 409 or 410. [29] [30] [31] The Byzantine historian Zosimus (fl. 490s – 510s) directly blamed Constantine for the expulsion, saying that he had allowed the Saxons to raid, and that the Britons and Gauls were reduced to such straits that they revolted from the Roman Empire, 'rejected Roman law, reverted to their native customs, and armed themselves to ensure their own safety'. [32]

An appeal for help by the British communities was, according to Zosimus, rejected by the Emperor Honorius in 410 AD. In the text called the Rescript of Honorius of 411, the Western Emperor Honorius tells the British civitates to look to their own defence as his regime was still fighting usurpers in the south of Gaul and trying to deal with the Visigoths who were in the very south of Italy. The first reference to this rescript is written by the sixth-century Byzantine scholar Zosimus and is located randomly in the middle of a discussion of southern Italy; no further mention of Britain is made, which has led some, though not all, modern academics to suggest that the rescript does not apply to Britain, but to Bruttium in Italy. [33] [34] [35]

Historian Christopher Snyder wrote that protocol dictated that Honorius address his correspondence to imperial officials, and the fact that he did not implies that the cities of Britain were now the highest Roman authority remaining on the island. [36] The idea that there may have been larger-scale political formations still intact on the island has not been completely discredited however.

At the time that the Rescript was sent, Honorius was holed up in Ravenna by the Visigoths and was unable to prevent their Sack of Rome (410). [36] He was certainly in no position to offer any relief to anyone. As for Constantine III, he was not equal to the intrigues of imperial Rome and by 411 his cause was spent. His son was killed along with those major supporters who had not turned against him, and he himself was assassinated. [37]

Interpretative variations

There are various interpretations that characterise the events in a way that supports a particular thesis without taking issue with the basic chronology.

The historian Theodor Mommsen (Britain, 1885) said that "It was not Britain that gave up Rome, but Rome that gave up Britain ...", arguing that Roman needs and priorities lay elsewhere. [38] His position has retained scholarly support over the passage of time.

Michael Jones (The End of Roman Britain, 1998) took the opposite view, saying that it was Britain that left Rome, arguing that numerous usurpers based in Britain combined with poor administration caused the Romano-Britons to revolt. Certain scholars such as J. B. Bury ("The Notitia Dignitatum" 1920) and German historian Ralf Scharf, disagreed entirely with the standard chronology. They argued that the evidence in fact supports later Roman involvement in Britain, post 410.

Factual disputes

Romano-British or Anglo-Saxon belt fittings in the Quoit Brooch Style from the Mucking Anglo-Saxon cemetery, early 5th century, using a mainly Roman style for very early Anglo-Saxon clients Mucking DSCF9230.JPG
Romano-British or Anglo-Saxon belt fittings in the Quoit Brooch Style from the Mucking Anglo-Saxon cemetery, early 5th century, using a mainly Roman style for very early Anglo-Saxon clients

Regarding the events of 409 and 410 when the Romano-Britons expelled Roman officials and sent a request for aid to Honorius, Michael Jones (The End of Roman Britain, 1998) offered a different chronology to the same end result: he suggested that the Britons first appealed to Rome and when no help was forthcoming, they expelled the Roman officials and took charge of their own affairs. [39]

One theory that occurs in some modern histories concerns the Rescript of Honorius, holding that it refers to the cities of the Bruttii (who lived at the "toe" of Italy in modern Calabria), rather than to the cities of the Britons. [40] [41] [42] The suggestion is based on the assumption that the source (Zosimus) or a copyist made an error and actually meant Brettia when Brettania was written, and noting that the passage that contains the Rescript is otherwise concerned with events in northern Italy.

Criticisms of the suggestion range from treating the passage in the way it was written by Zosimus and ignoring the suggestion, [43] to simply noting its speculative nature, [44] to a discussion of problems with the suggestion (e.g., 'why would Honorius write to the cities of the Bruttii rather than to his own provincial governor for that region?', and 'why does far-off southern Italy belong in a passage about northern Italy any more than far-off Britain?'). [45] [46] The theory also contradicts the account of Gildas, who provides independent support that the reference is to Britain by repeating the essence of Zosimus's account and clearly applying it to Britain. [47]

E. A. Thompson ("Britain, A.D. 406–410", in Britannia, 8 (1977), pp. 303–318) offered a more provocative theory to explain the expulsion of officials and appeal for Roman aid. He suggested that a revolt consisting of dissident peasants, not unlike the Bagaudae of Gaul, also existing in Britain, and when they revolted and expelled the Roman officials, the landowning class then made an appeal for Roman aid. [48] There is no direct textual statement of this, though it might be plausible if the definition of 'bagaudae' is changed to fit the circumstances. There is no need to do so, as any number of rational scenarios already fit the circumstances. [49] There is the possibility that some form of bagaudae existed in Britain, but were not necessarily relevant to the events of 409 and 410. The alleged ubiquity of Pelagianism amongst the British population may have contributed to such a movement if it had existed, not to mention large-scale purges amongst the British elite over previous decades. Among the works that mention but skirt the issue is Koch's Celtic Culture (2005), which cites Thompson's translation of Zosimus and goes on to say "The revolt in Britain may have involved bacaudae or peasant rebels as was the case in Armorica, but this is not certain." [50]

Notes

  1. Snyder 1998 :13, An Age of Tyrants. Snyder cites Zosimus 4.35.2-6 and 37.1-3, and Orosius (7.34.9-10), with the latter saying that Maximus was an unwilling usurper.
  2. Frere 1987 :354, Britannia, The End of Roman Britain. Specifically, Frere refers to Wales, the western Pennines, and the fortress at Deva; he then goes on to suggest that the same was true north of Hadrian's Wall, referring to the lands of the Damnonii, Votadini, and the Novantae.
  3. 1 2 Higham 1992 :75, Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons, "Britain Without Rome".
  4. Frere 1987 :354, Britannia, The End of Roman Britain. Frere notes that excavation of coins dated after 383 suggests that Maximus did not strip the Wall of troops.
  5. Giles 1841 :13, The Works of Gildas, The History, ch. 14
  6. Laing 1975 :93, Early Celtic Britain and Ireland, Wales and the Isle of Man.
  7. Miller, Mollie (1977), "Date-Guessing and Dyfed", Studia Celtica, vol. 12, Cardiff: University of Wales, pp. 33–61
  8. Coplestone-Crow, Bruce (1981), "The Dual Nature of Irish Colonization of Dyfed in the Dark Ages", Studia Celtica, vol. 16, Cardiff: University of Wales, pp. 1–24
  9. Meyer, Kuno (1896), "Early Relations Between Gael and Brython", in Evans, E. Vincent (ed.), Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, Session 1895–1896, vol. I, London: Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, pp. 55–86
  10. Mattingly 2006 :232, An Imperial Possession. The Gallic Chronicle of 452 is cited as giving the year 382/383.
  11. Frere 1987 :354, In "Britannia, The End of Roman Britain," Frere suggests that Maximus would return to Britain in 384, after he became Augustus, to campaign against the Scoti and Picts.
  12. Snyder 1998 :13, Age of Tyrants. Snyder cites Sozomen 7.13, and Orosius 7.35.3-4.
  13. Snyder 2003 :62, The Britons. The date is given as 398. Stilicho himself was suppressing revolts in Africa at the time.
  14. Frere 1987 :355, Britannia, "The End of Roman Britain".
  15. 1 2 Jones & Mattingly 1990 :307, An Atlas of Roman Britain.
  16. Mattingly 2006 :238, An Imperial Possession.
  17. Snyder 2003 :62–63, The Britons. Stilicho had ordered measures for new fortifications in Britain prior to removing the troops.
  18. Snyder 1998 :18, An Age of Tyrants. Snyder notes that the sometimes confused effort of Gildas to relate history may contain references to Stilicho's actions in Britain. In De Excidio, ch. 16-18, he talks of campaigns against the Scoti, Saxons and Picts, and then mistakenly says that that is when Hadrian's Wall was built, followed by the removal of troops.
  19. Snyder 1998 :18, An Age of Tyrants.
  20. 1 2 3 Frere 1987 :357, Britannia.
  21. Michael Kulikowski, "Barbarians in Gaul, Usurpers in Britain" Britannia 31 (2000:325-345).
  22. Snyder 1998 :18, Age of Tyrants.
  23. Snyder 1998 :19, Age of Tyrants.
  24. Frere 1987 :358, Britannia.
  25. Snyder 1998 :19–20, Age of Tyrants.
  26. Snyder 2003 :79, The Britons.
  27. Higham 1992 :72, Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons, "Britain Without Rome".
  28. Snyder 1998 :20–21, Age of Tyrants.
  29. Frere 1987 :358–359, Britannia.
  30. Snyder 1998 :20, Age of Tyrants.
  31. Higham 1992 :71–72, Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons, "Britain Without Rome".
  32. Snyder 1998 :22, An Age of Tyrants.
  33. Birley, Anthony Richard The Roman Government of Britain OUP Oxford (29 Sep 2005) ISBN   978-0199252374 pp.461-463
  34. Halsall, Guy Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568 Cambridge University Press; illustrated edition (20 Dec 2007) ISBN   978-0521434911, pp. 217-18
  35. Discussion in Martin Millett, The Romanization of Britain, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) and in Philip Bartholomew 'Fifth-Century Facts' Britannia vol. 13, 1982, p. 260
  36. 1 2 Snyder 1998 :21, Age of Tyrants.
  37. Snyder 1998 :21–22, Age of Tyrants.
  38. Mommsen, Theodor (1885), "Britain", The Provinces of the Roman Empire, vol. I, translated by Dickson, William P., New York: Charles Scribner's Sons (published 1887), p. 211
  39. Snyder 1998 :25, Age of Tyrants.
  40. Birley, Anthony (2005) The Roman Government of Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press ISBN   0-19-925237-8, pp. 461–463
  41. Halsall, Guy Barbarian migrations and the Roman West, 376-568 Cambridge University Press; illustrated edition (20 Dec 2007) ISBN   978-0-521-43491-1 pp.217-218
  42. Discussion in Martin Millett, The Romanization of Britain, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) and in Philip Bartholomew 'Fifth-Century Facts' Britannia vol. 13, 1982 p. 260
  43. Frere 1987 :359, Britannia, "The End of Roman Britain".
  44. Higham 1992 :73, Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons, "Britain Without Rome".
  45. Snyder 1998 :24, Age of Tyrants.
  46. Woolf, Alex (2003), "The Britons: from Romans to Barbarians", in Goetz, Hans Werner; Jarnut, Jörg; Pohl, Walter (eds.), Regna and Gentes, Brill, pp. 346–347, ISBN   90-04-12524-8 . Woolf cites the argument of E. A. Thompson but does not choose sides, saying that the issue is neither provable nor disprovable.
  47. Snyder 1998 :18, Age of Tyrants. Gildas (De Excidio, 18.1) is quoted as saying "The Romans therefore informed our country that they could not go on being bothered with such troublesome expeditions. ... Rather, the British should stand alone, get used to arms, fight bravely, and defend with all their powers their land."
  48. Snyder 1998 :22, Age of Tyrants.
  49. Snyder 1998 :23–24, Age of Tyrants.
  50. Koch, John T., ed. (2005), "Civitas", Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia, ABL-CLIO (published 2006), pp. 450–451, ISBN   978-1-85109-440-0

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alaric I</span> King of the Visigoths from 395 to 410

Alaric I was the first king of the Visigoths, from 395 to 410. He rose to leadership of the Goths who came to occupy Moesia—territory acquired a couple of decades earlier by a combined force of Goths and Alans after the Battle of Adrianople.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Honorius (emperor)</span> Roman emperor from 393 to 423

Honorius was Roman emperor from 393 to 423. He was the younger son of emperor Theodosius I and his first wife Aelia Flaccilla. After the death of Theodosius in 395, Honorius, under the regency of Stilicho, ruled the western half of the empire while his brother Arcadius ruled the eastern half. His reign over the Western Roman Empire was notably precarious and chaotic. In 410, Rome was sacked for the first time in almost 800 years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roman Britain</span> Britain under Roman rule (43 AD – c.410 AD)

Roman Britain was the territory that became the Roman province of Britannia after the Roman conquest of Britain, consisting of a large part of the island of Great Britain. The occupation lasted from AD 43 to AD 410.

The 400s decade ran from January 1, 400, to December 31, 409.

The 410s decade ran from January 1, 410, to December 31, 419.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Magnus Maximus</span> Roman emperor from 383 to 388

Magnus Maximus was Roman emperor in the West from 383 to 388. He usurped the throne from emperor Gratian.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stilicho</span> Roman army general (c. 359 – 408)

Stilicho was a military commander in the Roman army who, for a time, became the most powerful man in the Western Roman Empire. He was of Vandal origins and married to Serena, the niece of emperor Theodosius I. He became guardian for the underage Honorius. After nine years of struggle against barbarian and Roman enemies, political and military disasters finally allowed his enemies in the court of Honorius to remove him from power. His fall culminated in his arrest and execution in 408.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constantine III (Western Roman emperor)</span> Roman emperor from 407 to 411

Constantine III was a common Roman soldier who was declared emperor in Roman Britain in 407 and established himself in Gaul. He was recognised as co-emperor of the Roman Empire from 409 until 411.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constans II (son of Constantine III)</span> Roman emperor from 409 to 411

Constans II was the son of Western Roman emperor Constantine III, and served as his co-emperor from 409 to 411. Constans was a monk prior to his father being acclaimed emperor by the army in Britain in early 407, an act of rebellion against the ruling emperor Honorius. He was summoned to Gaul, appointed to the position of caesar (heir) and swiftly married so that a dynasty could be founded. In Hispania, Honorius's relatives rose in 408 and expelled Constantine's administration. An army under the generals Constans and Gerontius was sent to deal with this and Constantine's authority was re-established. Honorius acknowledged Constantine as co-emperor in early 409 and Constantine immediately raised Constans to the position of augustus (emperor), theoretically equal in rank to Honorius as well as to Constantine. Later in 409 Gerontius rebelled, proclaimed his client Maximus emperor and incited barbarian groups in Gaul to rise up. Constans was sent to quash the revolt, but was defeated and withdrew to Arles. In 410, Constans was sent to Hispania again. Gerontius had strengthened his army with barbarians and defeated Constans; the latter withdrew north and was defeated again and killed at Vienne early in 411. Gerontius then besieged Constantine in Arles and killed him.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fall of the Western Roman Empire</span> Loss of central political control in the Western Roman Empire in late antiquity

The fall of the Western Roman Empire, also called the fall of the Roman Empire or the fall of Rome, was the loss of central political control in the Western Roman Empire, a process in which the Empire failed to enforce its rule, and its vast territory was divided between several successor polities. The Roman Empire lost the strengths that had allowed it to exercise effective control over its Western provinces; modern historians posit factors including the effectiveness and numbers of the army, the health and numbers of the Roman population, the strength of the economy, the competence of the emperors, the internal struggles for power, the religious changes of the period, and the efficiency of the civil administration. Increasing pressure from invading barbarians outside Roman culture also contributed greatly to the collapse. Climatic changes and both endemic and epidemic disease drove many of these immediate factors. The reasons for the collapse are major subjects of the historiography of the ancient world and they inform much modern discourse on state failure.

Gratian or Gratianus was a Roman usurper in Roman Britain from 406-407.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theodosian dynasty</span> Roman imperial dynasty in Late Antiquity, r. 379–457

The Theodosian dynasty was a Roman imperial family that produced five Roman emperors during Late Antiquity, reigning over the Roman Empire from 379 to 457. The dynasty's patriarch was Theodosius the Elder, whose son Theodosius the Great was made Roman emperor in 379. Theodosius's two sons both became emperors, while his daughter married Constantius III, producing a daughter that became an empress and a son also became emperor. The dynasty of Theodosius married into, and reigned concurrently with, the ruling Valentinianic dynasty, and was succeeded by the Leonid dynasty with the accession of Leo the Great.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sub-Roman Britain</span> Period in Late Antiquity in Great Britain

Sub-Roman Britain is the period of late antiquity in Great Britain between the end of Roman rule and the Anglo-Saxon settlement. The term was originally used to describe archaeological remains found in 5th- and 6th-century AD sites that hinted at the decay of locally made wares from a previous higher standard under the Roman Empire. It is now used to describe the period that commenced with the recall of Roman troops to Gaul by Constantine III in 407 and to have concluded with the Battle of Deorham in 577.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Valentinian dynasty</span> Roman imperial dynasty in Late Antiquity, r. 364–392 and 421–455

The Valentinian dynasty was a ruling house of five generations of dynasts, including five Roman emperors during Late Antiquity, lasting nearly a hundred years from the mid fourth to the mid fifth century. They succeeded the Constantinian dynasty and reigned over the Roman Empire from 364 to 392 and from 425 to 455, with an interregnum (392–423), during which the Theodosian dynasty ruled and eventually succeeded them. The Theodosians, who intermarried into the Valentinian house, ruled concurrently in the east after 379.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sack of Rome (410)</span> Visigoth siege and looting of Rome

The sack of Rome on 24 August 410 AD was undertaken by the Visigoths led by their king, Alaric. At that time, Rome was no longer the capital of the Western Roman Empire, having been replaced in that position first by Mediolanum in 286 and then by Ravenna in 402. Nevertheless, the city of Rome retained a paramount position as "the eternal city" and a spiritual center of the Empire. This was the first time in almost 800 years that Rome had fallen to a foreign enemy, and the sack was a major shock to contemporaries, friends and foes of the Empire alike.

Events from the 5th century in England. Note that many of these dates may only be approximate.

Events from the 4th century in Roman Britain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sarus the Goth</span> Gothic Cheiftain

Sarus or Saurus was a Gothic chieftain known as a particularly brave and skillful warrior. He became a commander for the Emperor Honorius. He was known for his hostility to the prominent Gothic brothers-in-law Alaric I and Athaulf, and was the brother of Sigeric, who briefly ruled the Goths in 415.

<i>Limes Britannicus</i>

The frontier of the Roman Empire in Britain is sometimes styled Limes Britannicus by authors for the boundaries, including fortifications and defensive ramparts, that were built to protect Roman Britain. These defences existed from the 1st to the 5th centuries AD and ran through the territory of present-day England, Scotland and Wales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eucherius (son of Stilicho)</span> Son of Stilicho

Eucherius was the son of Stilicho, the magister militum of the Western Roman Empire, and Serena, a Roman noblewoman who was the niece of Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius I. He was born in c. 388 in Rome, Italy. Despite being the son of the magister militum, Eucherius did not rise farther than the modest rank of tribune of the notaries. Stilicho was accused by his political opponents of plotting to install Eucherius as a third emperor in Illyricum, and as a result of this Stilicho was arrested and executed on 22 August 408, and Eucherius soon after.

References

Further reading