ROMAN INFLUENCES.--AGRICOLA.--THE WALLS AND RAMPARTS OF ADRIAN,
ANTONINUS, AND SEVERUS.--BONOSUS.--CARAUSIUS.--THE CONSTANTIAN
FAMILY.--FRANKS AND ALEMANNI IN BRITAIN.--FOREIGN ELEMENTS IN THE
ROMAN LEGIONS.
The steady and continuous operation of Roman influences may be said to
begin in the reign of Claudius, A.D. 43; the sceptre of Cynobelin having
passed into the hands of his sons. Against these, and against the other
princes of Britain, such as Caradoc (Caractacus) and Cartismandua, the
active commanders Aulus Plautius and Ostorius Scapula are employed.
Three lines diverging from the parts about London give us the direction
of their conquests. One running along the valley of the Thames takes us
to the Dobuni of Gloucestershire, and the Silures of South Wales; both
of which are specially enumerated as subdued populations. The other,
almost at right angles with the last, gives us the operations against
the town of Camelodunum in Essex, the Iceni who afterwards revolted, and
the Brigantes of Yorkshire. The third is indicated by Paulinus'
campaigns in North Wales, and his bloody deeds in the Isle of Anglesey,
a line of conquest which probably arose out of the reduction of the
midland counties of Northampton, Leicester, Derby, Stafford, and
Shropshire. I do not say that these give us the actual movements of the
Roman army. They serve, however, to note the points where the special
evidence of Roman occupation is most definite.
In the reign of Vespasian the conquests were not only consolidated but
extended. Agricola builds his line of forts from the Forth to the Clyde,
and penetrates as far north as the Grampians. Whether the warriors whom
he here met under Galgacus were Britons, like those whom he had seen in
the south, or Gaels, is a matter which will be considered hereafter; but
he fought against them with foreign as well as with Roman soldiers. The
German Usipii formed one, if not more, of his cohorts; a circumstance
which shews what will be illustrated, with fuller details, in the
sequel, viz., that the Roman conquerors of Britain were far from being
exclusively Roman. The Usipii, however, are the first non-Roman soldiers
mentioned by name. On the west coast of Britain, Agricola had to deal
with the pirates from Ireland--undoubted Gaels whatever the warriors of
the Grampians may have been.
Roman civilization took root rapidly in Britain, though in a bad form.
The early existence of lawyers and money-lenders shew this. During the
reign of Domitian the advocates of Britain were known to the satirists
of Rome; and, as early as that of Nero, the calling-in of a loan by the
philosopher Seneca helped to create the great revolt under Boadicea. But
except in respect to the use of the Roman language, it is doubtful
whether the culture was much different from that which had developed
itself under Cynobelin--a civilization which though being due, in a
great degree, to Gaul, was also, more or less indirectly, Roman as well;
but, nevertheless, a civilization which was unattended with any loss of
nationality.
The rampart from the mouth of the Tyne to the Solway is referred to the
reign of Adrian; the conversion of Agricola's line of forts into a
continuous wall to that of Aurelius Antoninus. These boundaries give us
two areas. North of the Antonine frontier the Roman power was never
consolidated, although the eastern half was occasionally traversed by
active commanders like the Emperor Severus. It was the county of the
Caledonians and Mæatæ.
Between the frontier of Agricola and the rampart of Adrian, the
occupation was less incomplete. Incomplete, however, it was; even when,
in the fourth century, it was made a province by Theodosius, and in
honour of the Emperor of Valens, called Valentia. A.D. 211, Severus,
after strengthening the Antonine fortifications, dies at York; his
reign being an epoch of some importance in the history of Roman Britain.
In the first place, it is only up to this reign that our authorities are
at all satisfactory. Cæsar, Tacitus, and Dio Cassius, have hitherto been
our guides. For the next eighty years, however, we shall find no
cotemporary historian at all, and when our authorities begin again, the
first will be one of the worthless writers of the Panegyrics. In the
next place, the great divisions of the Britannic populations have
hitherto been but two--the Britons proper and the Caledonians. The next
class of writers will complicate the ethnology by speaking of the Picts.
The chief change, however, is that in the British population itself. The
contest, except on the Welsh and Scotch frontiers, is no longer between
the Roman invader and the British native; but between Britain as a
Romano-Britannic province, and Rome as the centre and head of the
empire: in other words, the quarrels with the mother-country replace the
wars against the aborigines. This, however, is part of the civil history
of Rome, rather than the natural history of Britain. The contests of
Albinus against Severus, and of Proculus and Bonosus against Probus, are
the earliest instances of the attempts upon the Imperial Purple from
these quarters; attempts which give us the measure of the extent to
which the island was Roman rather than Keltic--at least in respect to
its political history.
Bonosus, himself, had British blood in his veins although born in Spain,
for his mother was a Gaul; but as he is called "Briton in origin," we
may infer that his father was from our own island. Probus allowed the
Britons the privilege of _growing vines and of making wine_.
In the last ten years of the third century events thicken. The revolt of
Carausius, the assumption of the empire by Allectus, and the adoption of
Constantius Chlorus by Diocletian as Cæsar, are events of ethnological
as well as political influence. This they are, because they indicate
either the introduction of foreign elements into Britain, or the
infusion of British blood in other quarters. Carausius, for instance,
was a Menapian, and he is not likely to have been the only one of his
times. The Constantian family, I believe, to have been more British than
even the usual opinion makes them.
A little consideration will tell us that the three names of this
important pedigree--Constans, Constantius, and Constantinus, have no
etymological connexion with the substantive _Constantia_; in other
words, that _Constans_ does not mean the _constant Man_, just as
_prudens_ means the _prudent_, or _sapiens_ the _wise_. No such
signification will account for the forms in -_ius_ and -_inus_. To this
it may be added that the family was of foreign extraction, as were the
families of nearly half the later emperors. The name, I believe, was
foreign also. If so, it was most probably Keltic; since _con_, both as a
simple single term, and as an element of compounds is a common Keltic
proper name. The only fact against this view is the descent of the first
of the three emperors--Constantius. He was not born in either Gaul or
Britain. On the contrary, his father was a high official in the Diocese
of Illyricum, and his mother, a niece of the Emperor Claudius;[10]
circumstances which, at the first view, seem to contradict the inference
from the name. They do so, however, in appearance only. The most
unlikely man to have been high in office in Illyricum was a native
Illyrian; for it was the policy of Rome to put Kelts in the Slavonic,
and Slavonians in the Keltic, provinces; just as, at the present moment,
Russia places Finn regiments in the Caucasus, and Caucasian in Finland.
If this view be correct, a Keltic name is evidence, as far as it goes,
of Keltic blood.
In the next generation we have to deal with both historical facts and
traditions connected with the pedigree of Constantine the Great. That he
was born in Britain, and that his mother was of low origin, are the
historical facts; that she was the daughter of King Coel of Colchester
is the tradition. The latter is of any amount of worthlessness, and no
stress is laid upon it. The former are considered confirmatory of the
present view. The chief support, however, lies in the British character
of the name.
In the Panegyric of Mamertinus on the Emperor Maximian, one of the
Augusti, who shared the imperial power with Diocletian, we have the
first mention of the Picts. Worthless as the Panegyrists are when we
want specific facts, they have the great merit of being cotemporary to
the events they allude to; for allusions of a tantalizing and
unsatisfactory character is all we get from them. However, Mamertinus is
the first writer who mentions the Picts, and he does it in his notice of
the revolt of Carausius.
More important than this is a passage which gives us an army of Frank
mercenaries in the City of London, as early as A.D. 290--there or
thereabouts. It is a passage of which too little notice has, hitherto,
been taken--"By so thorough a consent of the Immortal Gods, O
unconquered Cæsar, has the extermination of all the enemies, whom you
have attacked, _and of the Franks more especially_, been decreed, that
even those of your soldiers, who, having missed their way on a foggy
sea, reached the town of London, destroyed promiscuously and throughout
the city the whole remains of that mercenary multitude of barbarians,
that, after escaping the battle, sacking the town, and, attempting
flight, was still left--a deed, whereby your provincials were not only
saved, but delighted by the sight of the slaughter."
One German tribe, then at least, has set its foot on the land of Britain
as early as the reign of Diocletian; and that as enemies. How far their
settlement was permanent, and how far the particular section of them,
mentioned by Mamertinus, represented the whole of the invasion, is
uncertain. The paramount fact is the existence of hostile Franks in
Middlesex nearly 200 years before the epoch of Hengist.
Were there Saxons as well? This is a question for the sequel. At
present, I remark, that Mamertinus mentions them by name but without
placing them on the soil of Britain. They merely vexed the British Seas.
Were there any other Germans? Aurelius Victor suggests that there were.
A.D. 306, Constantius dies at York, and Constantine, his son, "assisted
by all who were about, but especially by Eroc, King of the Alemanni,
assumes the empire." Now Eroc had accompanied Constantius as an ally
(_auxilii gratii_); so that there were Alemanni in Yorkshire, as well
as Franks in Middlesex, with powers, more or less, approaching those of
independent populations; at any rate, in a different position from the
mere legionary Germans, of whom further notice will soon be taken.
In Julian's reign the Picts, Scots, and Attacotti harass the South
Britons. This is on the cotemporary and unexceptionable evidence of
Ammianus Marcellinus. And the same cotemporary and unexceptionable
evidence adds the _Saxons_ to his list of devastators--"Picti,
_Saxonesque_, et Scoti, et Attacotti Britannos ærumnis vexavere
continuis." Mark the word _continuis_.
The _Alemanni_ of Britain are noticed by the same writer in a passage
which must be taken along with the notice of the Alemanni under Eroc.
"Valentinian placed Fraomarius as king over the Buccinobantes, a nation
of the Alemanni, near Mentz. Soon afterwards, however, an attack upon
his people devastated their country (_pa-_ _gum_, _gau_). He was then
translated to Britain, and placed over the Alemanni, _at that time
flourishing both in numbers and power_, as tribune."
We may now ask what foreign elements were introduced into Britain by the
Roman legions; since nothing is more certain than that the Roman armies
consisted, but in a small degree, of Romans. The Notitia[11] Utriusque
Imperii helps us here; indeed it may be that it supplies us with a
complete list of the imperial forces in all their ethnological
heterogeneousness. Some of the titles of the regiments and companies
(_alæ_, _numeri_, _cohortes_) are unexplained: several, however, are
taken from the country of the soldiers that composed them.
The list gives us settlers in Britain of Germanic, Gallic, Iberic,
Slavonic, Aramaic, and Berber extraction.
GERMANS.
_Tungricani._--Either soldiers who had distinguished themselves in
the parts about Tongres, or true Tungrian Germans, under a
Præpositus, and stationed at Dubris (_Dover_).
_Tungri._--True Tungrian Germans. At Borcovicum. A cohort.
_Turnacenses._--Either soldiers who had distinguished themselves in
the parts about Tournay, or true Tournay Germans, under a Præpositus,
and stationed at Lemanus (_Lymne_).
_Batavians._--A cohort stationed at Procolitia.
GAULS.
_Nervii._--A numerous cohort under a Prefect at Dictum.
_Nervii._--A cohort at Aliona.
_Nervii._--A cohort at Virosidum. How far these were Gauls, or, if
Gauls, of unmixed blood, is uncertain. During the wars of Cæsar, the
brave nation of the Nervians was said to have been exterminated.
Such was not the case. Portions of it remained. At the same time,
the reduction was so great, and the subsequent influx of Germans
from the Lower Rhine was so considerable, that the soldiers in
question were, probably, as much Roman and German as Gallic.
_Morini._--Gauls from the parts about Calais. A cohort, stationed at
Glannobanta.
_Galli._--A cohort at Vendolana.
IBERIANS.
_Hispani._--A cohort. Stationed at Axellodunum.
SLAVONIANS.
_Dalmatæ._--Cavalry. Stationed at Brannodunum.
_Dalmatæ._--A cohort, at Præsidum.
_Dalmatæ._--A cohort, at Magna.
_Daci._--A cohort, at Amboglanna.
_Thraces._--A cohort, at Gabrosentum.
_Thaifal(?)_--Cavalry. Perhaps German, but more probably Slavonians,
infamous for the turpitude of their habits.
ARAMÆANS.
_Syri._--Cavalry.
BERBERS.
_Mauri._--Under a Prefect, at Aballaba.
If we ask what proportion these foreign and miscellaneous elements in
the Roman Legions of Britain bore to the true Romans, we wait in vain
for an answer. This is because the constitution of the other portions of
the army is unknown. Who (for instance) composed the _Fortenses_, the
_Stablesiani_, the _Abulci_, and numerous other companies? Perhaps,
Romans; in which case the proportion of Syrian, Slavonian, and other
non-Roman elements is diminished. Perhaps, Syrians, Slavonians, or
Germans; in which case it is increased. That the above-named troops,
however, belonged to the ethnological divisions which are denoted by the
names, is in the highest degree probable. It is also probable that the
list may be increased; thus the _Pacenses_, the _Asti_, the _Frixagori_,
and the _Lergi_, although there are doubts, in every case, about the
reading, and still greater about the signification, have reasonably been
thought to have been regiments, or companies, named from the localities
where they were levied; but, as already stated, these localities are
doubtful.
As blood foreign to both the British and Roman was introduced into
Britain, so was British blood introduced elsewhere. All the foreign
stations of the British troops are not known; but that there was, at
least, one in each of the following countries is certain--Illyricum,
Egypt, Northern Africa. The history of foreign blood in Britain, and of
British blood in foreign countries are counterpart questions.
The lines of Roman road are the best _data_ for ascertaining the parts
of our island where the mixture of Roman and foreign blood was greatest:
since it is a fair inference that those districts which were the least
accessible were the most Keltic. These are North Wales, Cornwall and
Devonshire, the Wealds of Sussex and Kent, Lincolnshire, and the
district of Craven. On the other hand, the pre-eminently Roman tracts
are--
1. The valleys of the Tyne and Solway, or the line of the wall and
rampart which divided South Britain from North.
2. The valley of the Ouse, or the parts about York.
3, 4. The valleys of the Thames and Severn.
5. Cheshire and South Lancashire.
6. Norfolk and Suffolk.
The Roman blood, then, in Britain seems to have been inconsiderable,
even when we class as Roman everything which was other than British.
That the language, however, was chiefly Latin--more or less
modified--is what we infer from the analogies of Gaul and Spain. The
history, too, of four centuries of civilization and corruption is Roman
also. That there was a bodily evacuation of Britain by the Romans, a
concealment of treasures, and a migration to Gaul, rests upon no
authority earlier than that of the Anglo-Saxon writers, some five
centuries later. The country was rather a theatre for usurpers and
rebels; none of whom can be shewed to have either left the island, or to
have been exterminated by the Anglo-Saxon invasion--an invasion to
which, in a future chapter, an earlier date, and a more gradual
operation than is usually assigned will be attributed.
FOOTNOTES:
[10] Niebuhr's Lectures, p. iii, 312.
[11] Referred to some time between the reigns of Valens and Honorius.