The Romans ruled Britain from AD 43 to AD 410. After three and a half centuries of domination, the fall of Roman Britain must have been a memorable moment for the island’s inhabitants. But when the Britons of the medieval period looked back on these events, how did they remember them? One of the most detailed medieval accounts comes from Gildas, writing in the 6th century. What did he have to say about the fall of Roman Britain, and how well does it align with earlier sources?
Medieval British Sources for the Roman Withdrawal
The most historically important account from medieval Britain about the fall of Roman Britain comes from Gildas. He was a British monk who wrote De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae in the 6th century. The title is often known in English as On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain, making the subject matter clear. However, Gildas provides almost no explicit dates in his account, nor does he mention many people by name, making it a complicated source to navigate. Later sources, such as Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, drew on Gildas.
The last figure explicitly identified by Gildas, who also appears in contemporary non-British documents, is Magnus Maximus. He was a Roman official from Roman Britain, quite possibly its governor, who was proclaimed emperor by his troops in AD 383. He went forth to conquer the Western Roman Empire, and despite initial success, he was eventually killed by Theodosius I in 388. Therefore, Gildas’ account can only be confirmed by non-British sources until the 380s.
In his description of Magnus Maximus, Gildas claims that he withdrew all the Roman forces from Britain. In effect, this is the end of Roman Britain in any permanent sense. However, Gildas also makes it clear that the Roman military was still active in Britain for some time thereafter.
Did Magnus Maximus Withdraw Rome’s Troops?
In reality, Magnus Maximus did not withdraw all of the Roman legions. He did, however, withdraw enough troops to engage in a successful war against Gratian, the emperor of the Western Roman Empire. He also substantially reorganized the structure of Roman Britain, withdrawing troops from various locations and stationing them elsewhere.
For example, no Roman coins from after Maximus’ reign have been found at the Roman fort of Malton, Yorkshire. Many forts around inland Wales were also apparently abandoned. Meanwhile, other parts of Britain were strengthened, such as the coastal regions of Wales. Maximus led yet another large army from Britain to Gaul in 387 in a renewed war with his rival emperors.
This suggests that Gildas’ account of the official end of Roman Britain is greatly exaggerated, while still ultimately being rooted in fact. Magnus Maximus removed large numbers of troops from Britain and left much of it undefended. However, contrary to Gildas’ assertion, this was not the end of Roman Britain in any meaningful sense. At a stretch, we might consider this to be the beginning of the end.
Gildas on Defending the Borders of Roman Britain
After describing Maximus’ rebellion, Gildas states the following:
“After this, Britain is left deprived of all her soldiery and armed bands, of her cruel governors, and of the flower of her youth, who went with Maximus, but never again returned; and utterly ignorant as she was of the art of war, groaned in amazement for many years under the cruelty of two foreign nations – the Scots from the north-west and the Picts from the north.”
(Gildas, De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae 14)
Gildas goes on to describe how the Britons appealed to the Romans for help against these attacks from the Picts and the Scots. The Romans responded favorably to their appeal for help and drove the invaders back. They managed to re-establish control over Britain as far north as modern-day Scotland. Gildas then refers to them as building a turf wall from sea to sea to act as a frontier to protect the Romano-Britons. This is evidently an erroneous reference to the Antonine Wall, which extends from the Clyde to the Forth, built much earlier between AD 142 and 154.
According to Gildas, soon after the Romans left, the Picts and the Scots recommenced their attacks. The Britons once again appealed to the Romans for help. The Romans returned and defeated the invaders once more. This time, they constructed a stone wall from sea to sea in the north, evidently an erroneous reference to Hadrian’s Wall, which was built around AD 122. After completing this defensive structure, the Romans informed the Britons that they could no longer defend them. From then on, they would be on their own. The Romans then left and, according to Gildas, never to return.
Can Gildas’ Account be Confirmed?
Can any of Gildas’ claims be confirmed by archaeology or earlier historical sources? Interestingly, we find confirmation for the basic outline of this narrative in the poems of Claudian, a Roman court poet who died at the beginning of the 5th century AD. He also mentions two wars that the Roman army fought in Britain against the Picts and Scots.
In some of his poems, he referred to Theodosius I as engaging in a campaign in Caledonia, which roughly corresponds to Scotland. While not giving any details about what exactly transpired during this campaign, Claudian specifically mentions Theodosius fighting against the Picts and the Scots, which aligns with Gildas. This campaign must have occurred after 388 and likely before 392, also corresponding with Gildas’ timeline.
Later, Claudian referred to a war in the north of Britain which occurred between late 398 and early 400. This campaign was led by the general Stilicho under the emperor Honorius. Again, Claudian makes specific mentions of the Picts and the Scots and also implies that the campaign took place in Caledonia.
These two campaigns mentioned by Claudian are almost certain to be the two wars mentioned by Gildas. Interestingly, Claudian also refers to the departure of the Roman troops after the second of these wars. In his poem The Gothic War, he refers to troops leaving Britain to face Alaric, the king of the Visigoths, on the continent. These troops are specifically described as those who had fought against the Picts and the Scots.
While Gildas misdates the construction of Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall, this does not necessarily invalidate the rest of his account. Moreover, Claudian mentions that Stilicho gave the Britons forts during this campaign, which could explain Gildas’ confusion.
The Final Fall of Roman Britain
Gildas specifically says that these Romans never again returned, which is often viewed as the final end of Roman Britain. However, we know from earlier accounts that this is not correct.
According to Zosimus, writing at the start of the 6th century, in the early 5th century, chaos on the continent saw Britain cut off from Rome. With no word from Rome, the troops in Britain elected their own emperors, Marcus, Gratian, and then Constantine III. In AD 407, Constantine led the last remaining Roman troops in Britain over to the mainland to try to take the Western Roman Empire. This left Britain vulnerable to attack from the Picts, Scots, and Saxons, who began to attack in AD 408 according to the near-contemporary Gallic Chronicle of 452.
When no help came, the locals expelled the remaining Roman officials and took up arms themselves. Nevertheless, they sent a request to the emperor Honorius for help. But with the Visigoths at the gates of Rome, in AD 410, Honorius told them to “look to their own defences.” This was the official end of Roman Britain.
Gildas’ account does not include the continued Roman presence in Britain that saw the election of local emperors. However, he does explain that the Picts and Scots resumed their attacks following the second northern war. He also says that the Britons appealed to Rome for help once more, but did not receive a favorable response.
This seems to be a reference to Honorius’ response, though Gildas erroneously says that the appeal was sent to “Agitus, thrice consul.” This is usually understood to be Flavius Aetius. However, he did not become consul for the third time until the 440s. This is thoroughly incompatible with the rest of Gildas’ account. Either Gildas got his information confused about who the Britons appealed to in 408 or 409, or he was referring to a real but entirely different and much earlier Roman named Agitus.
Gildas then tells us that something remarkable happened:
“And then it was, for the first time, that they overthrew their enemies, who had for so many years been living in their country.”
(Gildas, De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae 17)
Therefore, according to Gildas, finally, without needing to rely on help from the Romans, the Britons were able to defeat the Picts and the Scots themselves. Zosimus supports this claim. After this, Britain began to thrive economically. It was also at this time that the Britons began to appoint kings.
The End of Roman Britain According to Gildas
In conclusion, we can see that Gildas’ medieval, somewhat legendary account of the fall of Roman Britain is remarkably accurate. Almost all the basic elements of the narrative can be confirmed by contemporary records. Magnus Maximus really did withdraw a sizeable number of troops, leaving parts of Britain poorly defended, although Gildas exaggerates the magnitude of this. After this, the Romans really did engage in two successive wars in the north to fight the Picts and the Scots.
While the Antonine Wall and Hadrian’s Wall were not constructed at this time, Claudian does claim that Stilicho established forts for the Britons’ protection. This may have been what led to Gildas’ distorted account about construction works in the north at that time.
Afterwards, the Britons were attacked by the Picts and Scots yet again. Both Zosimus and the Gallic Chronicle of 452 attest to this. Due to not receiving a favorable response from the Romans this time, Gildas tells us that the Britons were finally able to defend themselves. Therefore, while it does have its inaccuracies, overall, Gildas presents a good account of the fall of Roman Britain.
