The Mammoth Book of King Arthur (6 page)

One mystery related to Britain at this time is worth mentioning, as it may have later relevance. By the 340s the empire was split between Constantine’s two surviving sons: Constans, who
ruled the west, including Britain, and Constantius II who ruled the east. In 343 Constans made an impulsive visit to Britain. His visit remains a mystery, yet the fact that he risked crossing the
English Channel during the winter suggests that it was something
serious. The contemporary chronicler Libanius, who recorded the visit (but seemed equally at a loss to explain
it), noted that “affairs in Britain were stable”, thereby ruling out the likelihood of a rebellion.

So what prompted it? Was it a religious matter? We shall see later that Britain was one of the rebel nations when it came to Christianity, supporting pagan worship and later encouraging
dangerous interpretations of Christian teachings such as Pelagianism. Would this be enough to tempt Constans across the waves at such a dangerous time? Possibly, but I am not convinced.

Further incursions by the Picts in the north is a possible explanation, but the winter was not a great period for warfare, and although British defences to the north were not as thorough as they
had been, they were still sufficient to cope with any activity that had not come to the notice of the chroniclers.

Was it, perhaps, an enclave of support for Constantius against Constans, or perhaps a lingering support for their dead brother Constantine II, who had ruled Gaul and Britain until his murder
just three years earlier?

This seems more likely. Diocletian had set up an extremely efficient intelligence agency, known as the
agentes in rebus
, who were good at sniffing out areas of unrest. Britain was always
a hotbed of rebels, and the fact that Libanius reports that Britain’s affairs were “stable” might only mean that word had not got out and any rebellion had been nipped in the bud
by Constans’s surprise visit.

Support for this interpretation comes from events just a few years later. In 350 Constans was murdered following an uprising in support of his army commander Magnentius. Although Magnentius was
born in Gaul, his father was believed to be British and was probably a high-ranking official. Did Constans learn of a plot, perhaps by Magnentius’s father in 343, which he was able to stifle?
Magnentius had a brief but mostly successful period as rival emperor until a series of defeats led him to commit suicide in 353. Constantius lived to fight another day, and sent the heavies into
Britain to root out any remaining supporters of Magnentius. His envoy was an over-zealous martinet from Spain called Paul who tortured, killed and imprisoned many British officials,
regardless of their guilt or innocence. So vicious were Paul’s measures that the
vicarius
of Britain, Flavius Martinus, tried to assassinate him but, when he failed,
killed himself.

Soon after Paul’s inquisitorial rampage another usurper rose in Britain, the mysterious Carausius II. Continental writers seem to know nothing about him, not even the ever-vigilant
Ammianus Marcellinus, whose
History
is one of the best records of this period. Unfortunately, most of the early part of his work has been lost, so we know of the existence of Carausius II
only from surviving coinage. Some historians have even dismissed the very existence of Carausius. However, he has been adopted into Welsh legend as the son-in-law of the patriarchal Eudaf Hen
(“the Old”), from whom most of the British kings were descended.

Even more mysteriously, amongst the British coinage is a record of someone called Genceris, who may have ruled elsewhere in Britain at the time of Carausius. Analysis of these coins can only
tell us so much, but it suggests that rival rulers did emerge in Britain in the period 354–358. They were seeking not to proclaim themselves rival emperors but, like Carausius I, to rule
Britain independently. Britain in the fourth century was at her wealthiest. Profits from grain exports and other native industries, plus unprecedented periods of comparative peace, had allowed the
Romano-British to become comfortable, and to think thoughts of independence. Constantine’s successors were fighting so much amongst themselves, and drawing troops away from the borders, that
Britain was becoming increasingly vulnerable. Saxons were continuing to harry the western coasts, the Irish were raiding the east, and the Picts were once again invading from the north. The
Romano-British aristocracy did not feel that the Empire was providing sufficient protection

From 360, Roman Britain was overrun by a massive Pictish invasion, with further uprisings in 364 and 367. Ammianus Marcellinus, who lived through these times, recorded the 367 revolt with
dramatic effect in his
Res Gestae
in 378,

The Attacotti (or Attecotti) were another tribe in the far north of Scotland. Later in his narrative, Ammianus provides amplification of the above:

We also learn that the
areani
who, rather like present-day police informants, were relating intelligence of barbarian activities back to the military, had turned traitor
and allied themselves with the Picts and Scots in revealing troop movements. As a consequence, the barbarians captured the
dux Britanniarum
Nectaridus, and killed the Count of the Saxon
Shore, Fullofaudes.

The new emperor, Valentinian, sent a general to deal with the problem, but he was soon recalled because of the enormity of the situation. Eventually, a much bigger force was despatched, under
the command of the brilliant general and tactician Theodosius. Upon his arrival, he discovered bands of marauding barbarians as far south as Kent and London. The Roman army was also in disarray,
many having deserted or forsaken their posts. The remaining force was demoralised and lacked co-ordination. The barbarians had by now no central command, and it was easy for Theodosius and his
troops to pick them off. He arrived at London in triumph and soon restored morale, pardoning deserters and encouraging the return of others. He spent the next two years not only recovering the
diocese, but undertaking a major programme of repair and refortification. Old forts were strengthened, towns were rebuilt and fortified, and a new series of watchtowers and signal stations was
built along the north-east coast to serve as advance guard against sea-borne attacks. Theodosius also
nipped one possible revolution in the bud when he arrested one Valentinus,
a criminal exiled to Britain from Pannonia, who was apparently planning some sort of takeover in Britain. Most interestingly, Ammianus refers to Theodosius recovering an existing province, which
had fallen into the hands of the enemy, and restoring it to its former state, renaming it Valentia in honour of the Emperor. Unfortunately he does not say where Valentia was, presumably having
described it in one of his earlier, lost, books. The fact that Theodosius restored a former province means either that one of the four existing provinces had been lost to Roman control and was now
recovered, or that a fifth province had previously been created. Evidence that it was a fifth province comes from the glorious document of the Roman civil service, the
Notitia Dignitatum
, a
compendium of the various offices of state throughout the Empire, which lists Valentia separately. Although this document came into being during the reign of Constantine the Great, it was
continually amended and updated and the version in which we know it today dates to some time around the end of the fourth century. Therefore we don’t know exactly when Valentia was created or
where it was.

In the
Notitia
, Valentia is grouped with Maxima Caesariensis, the southeastern province based around London, as being governed by a consul rather than a
praesides.
This could
suggest either that Valentia had been created by dividing Maxima Caesariensis in two – though then giving both halves consular governors was perhaps a little top heavy – or that Maxima
Caesariensis had been renamed Valentia. If that is the case, it means that one of the more senior provinces had somehow been wrested from Roman control, and the chances of this being in the south
are remote. We do not know if this was related to the rebel Valentinus, or where he was located, though in all likelihood he would have been in one of the southern provinces. Ammianus states that
“it had fallen into the hands of the enemy,” which probably means it had been taken over by the barbarian Picts. This would suggest it was a province in the north, the most obvious one
being Britannia Secunda, based at York. It may well be, therefore, that Valentia was a province split from Britannia Secunda. As we have seen in the past, the most difficult area to control had
been the western Pennines, and it has been suggested
that Valentia could have been created in what is now Cumbria and which, in Arthurian times, was part of Rheged.

It is just possible that Valentia was the territory between the Walls, not strictly a “province” but a buffer zone, and was the easiest province to lose to the Picts.

The separate reference to Valentia in the
Notitia Dignitatum
rules out the suggestion that Valentia was the name given to the whole of the diocese of Britain, an interpretation that could
be read into Ammianus’s text, and which would certainly have made sense. The fact that it was either a renamed fourth province or a new fifth province that was, albeit briefly, taken away
from Roman control, makes identification important, because it shows the abilities of the Picts, perhaps in collaboration with any rebellious indigenous population. This becomes important when
mapping out the Arthurian world in the next century.

Theodosius confirmed a number of new officers in various posts at this time. It’s possible that some of the people who were ancestors of the British kings may have been installed now, such
as Paternus, the grandfather of Cunedda, as a commander of the Votadini. One other appointment is worth mentioning. A short while after these events, Valentinian transferred a Germanic king,
Fraomar, to Britain as a military tribune in command of an existing contingent of Alamanni troops. It is not recorded where he was placed but it is a reminder that a high-ranking Germanic commander
was in Britain in the fourth century, in charge of Germanic troops, and he may well not have been the only one.

Theodosius’s campaign and reforms were successful in improving British morale and restoring Roman command and also, as a consequence, improving the quality of life in Britain.
Archaeological evidence, especially in the south, has identified plenty of places where high quality villas were extended or rebuilt at this time. Theodosius did not, however, stop continued
attempts by the Picts to undermine control in the north. This was especially so after the death of Valentinian in 375. He was succeeded by his two sons, Valentinian II, who was only four, and
Gratian, who was sixteen. Though Gratian grew into a passable soldier, he was no good at government and soon lost the confidence of the army. Once again the time was right for another usurper.

This came in the shape of Magnus Maximus, the “greatest of the great.” He was of Spanish descent and had served in Britain with Theodosius in 367. He had
remained with Theodosius, serving in Raetia from 370, against the Alamanni, and in Africa from 373, before returning to Britain in 380, possibly as
dux Britanniarum.
In 382 there was another
incursion by Picts and Scots which Maximus repulsed, bringing him great acclaim. He was popular amongst the troops and knew how to use this to his advantage, especially in denigrating the work of
Gratian. In 383 the ever-rebellious British soldiers declared Maximus their emperor.

Maximus took his army into Gaul and defeated Gratian after a protracted skirmish outside Paris. Gratian fled, but was murdered. Maximus knew better than to go after Valentinian, who was still
only 13. An agreement was reached with Theodosius whereby Valentinian remained emperor in Italy, but Maximus controlled the western empire north of the Alps.

And so it remained until Maximus became too sure of himself. His fate was an early example of the Christian faith being used by rulers to further their own ends. Valentinian, heavily influenced
by his mother, had passed an act legitimizing Arianism, a creed that held Jesus to be human and not divine. Maximus, who purported to be a devout Christian, and who had been the first to have a
non-orthodox Christian bishop executed for heresy, used Valentinian’s act as a cause to invade Italy and confront the young emperor. He took with him a large army, including further troops
from Britain. It was a foolish act. Maximus found himself trapped by the army of Theodosius, who had come to Valentinian’s aid, and he was killed. Maximus’s son, Flavius Victor, whom he
had appointed as caesar and left behind in Gaul, was also killed.

Maximus was bad news for Britain. He could have been a good emperor, but his belief in his own self importance got the better of him and he drained many troops from Britain, seriously weakening
its defences. These troops did not return. Many settled in Armorica (Brittany) and became the core of a British settlement.

Curiously, however, Maximus has entered British legend as something of a hero, and his march upon Rome has become
subsumed into Arthurian myth, as we shall later see. To the
Celts he was Macsen Wledig –
wledig
means “leader”. They claimed he was the grandson of Constantine the Great, through a daughter. This would fit into the chronology
– Maximus was born about 330 – though there is much uncertainty about his father. It is also claimed that Maximus was married twice: firstly to Ceindrech ferch Rheiden, who claimed
descent from Caswallon, and secondly to Elen, daughter of Eudaf. By his first wife he had two children – the unfortunate Victor, and Owain, who will feature again shortly. By his second wife
he had five children, including Constantine, a name which becomes drawn into the Arthurian legend, and Severa, who became the wife of Vortigern, the future ruler of Britain. There is no reason to
doubt that these children of Maximus existed. A tomb, which may be Constantine’s, has been found near Segontium (Caernarvon), a place strongly associated with Maximus. Future kings and
usurpers all liked to claim descent from Maximus, especially as he himself claimed descent from Constantine the Great, but one has to treat these genealogies with caution. I shall discuss all of
them in much detail later. All we need note at the moment is that despite having weakened Britain’s defences, Maximus was hailed a British hero and his life is a prelude to the story of
Arthur.