plik

      /The Heroic Age/

        Issue 4

        Winter 2001

------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The Last of The Romans:

    The life and times of Ambrosius Aurelianus

      by Kurt Hunter-Mann <mailto:khuntermann@yorkarchaeology.co.uk>
      York, UK

      -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

    Abstract

    This paper argues that Ambrosius Aurelianus was a more important
    figure than Arthur in fifth/sixth-century Britain. The life of
    Ambrosius elucidates the continuity of Roman Britain beyond the
    formal end of the Roman period in 410 and the rise of kingship in
    the former diocese during the fifth-century.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents:

    Introduction <#anchor1111980>
    The family of Ambrosius Aurelianus <#anchor1148915>
    The life of Ambrosius Aurelianus <#anchor1291940>
    The battle of Badon <#anchor1032353>
    The Ambrosian dynasty and political authority <#anchor1060548>
    Ambrosius Aurelianus and Arthur <#anchor1134255>
    Ambrosius Aurelianus and the end of Roman Britain <#anchor1614919>
    Notes <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1164993>
    Bibliography <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1163312>


------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Introduction

This paper [1] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1113946> reviews the historical
evidence for Ambrosius Aurelianus and his family, and considers whether

this evidence reflects the general situation in sub-Roman Britain. It is
not my primary intention to develop a narrative history of sub-Roman
Britain with a precise chronology.

The information provided by Gildas, principally in his /Ruin of
Britain/, will provide the basis of this review.[2]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1118161> Although Gildas was probably writing
in the first part of the sixth century and was therefore almost
contemporary with the fifth century events he describes, Gildas has
tended to be disregarded as a historical source because the details he
gave of events were vague and inconsistent; furthermore, he did not
provide a precise chronology for these events.[3]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1119474> However, more recent reviews have
demonstrated that although Gildas was primarily concerned with societal
matters of his own time, he is nevertheless an invaluable source of
information on fifth and early sixth century Britain.[4]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1125901> The other source that refers to
Ambrosius Aurelianus is the /British History/, attributed to Nennius.[5]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1131167> The /British History /is apparently
based on earlier sources but was compiled in the early ninth century. It
therefore post-dates Ambrosius Aurelianus by some 300 years, and so in
this paper its evidence is regarded as secondary to the information
provided by Gildas.

The period following the end of formal Roman imperial involvement in
Britain has been perceived as a 'dark age' in terms of the lack of
historical information available. In reality, there are numerous British
and continental sources, which together provide considerable insight
into sub-Roman Britain.[6] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1135387> With the
rehabilitation of Gildas as a historical source, fifth/sixth century
Britain is arguably better documented than much of the formal Roman
period. This is illustrated by the evidence for Ambrosius Aurelianus and
his family, an account that can be emulated for few personalities
involved in Roman Britain, particularly during the later Roman period.



        The family of Ambrosius Aurelianus

Gildas describes Ambrosius Aurelianus as follows:[7]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1160867>

    [The British] leader was Ambrosius Aurelianus, a gentleman who,
    perhaps alone of the Romans, had survived the shock of this notable
    storm: certainly his parents, who had worn the purple, were slain in
    it. His descendants in our day have become greatly inferior to their
    grandfather's excellence.

The reference to his parents wearing the purple has been interpreted as
meaning that Ambrosius Aurelianus's parents were in the upper echelons
of the political hierarchy in Britain.[8]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1192770> Ambrosius Aurelianus's father
(hereafter Ambrosius senior) is described in the /British History/ as
'one of the consuls of the Roman people'.[9]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1200407>

The chronographic section of the /British History/ includes the
following computation:[10] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1204054> 'From the
reign of Vortigern to the quarrel between Vitalinus and Ambrosius are
twelve years, that is Guollopum, the battle of Guoloph.' The chronograph
in the /British History/ also dates the beginning of Vortigern's reign
to c.425. This would give a date of c.437 for the battle of Guoloph.
Moreover, the /British History/ also states that:[11]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1209381> 'Vortigern ruled in Britain, and
during his rule in Britain, he was under pressure, from fear of the
Picts and Irish, and of a Roman invasion, and not least, from dread of
Ambrosius.'

These references identify an Ambrosius who was a contemporary, indeed a
rival of Vortigern; and Gildas refers to Ambrosius senior, who was
killed during the Saxon revolt. It is very likely that Ambrosius senior
and the Ambrosius who was a rival of Vortigern were one and the same
person. Ambrosius senior, who probably fought at Guoloph c.437, who died
during the Saxon revolt, and who was a contemporary of Vortigern, can
therefore be given a floruit of the second quarter of the fifth century.

A more precise date for the death of Ambrosius senior would be
forthcoming if the Saxon revolt could be more securely dated. The
/Gallic Chronicle of 452/ states that around the year 441:[12]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1211670> 'The British provinces, which up to
this time had suffered various defeats and catastrophes, were reduced to
Saxon rule.' Although this entry could refer to the Saxon revolt, Alcock
has suggested that this statement was an exaggeration; perhaps only a
limited area, which had close links with the continent, had changed
hands.[13] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1215736> Moreover, it may be that
the statement in the /Gallic Chronicle/ does not refer to the Saxon
revolt at all. The phrase /indicionem Saxonum rediguntur/ suggests a
somewhat passive change of authority, perhaps by political means rather
than by force of arms. Gildas states that the first two contingents of
/Saxones/ had been invited by the British authorities. The technical
terms he uses indicate that these contingents were foederati, which
implies the British were merely following the established Roman policy
of inviting foreign troops to strengthen their military.[14]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1218733>

The /British History/ also recounts the arrival of two successive groups
of Germanic troops. Furthermore, it states that Vortigern ceded Kent to
the Saxons following the arrival of the second contingent, which
comprised sixteen boatloads of warriors:[15]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1220232> 'So he [Vortigern] granted it [Kent]
to them, although Gwyrangon was ruling in Kent, and did not know that
his kingdom was being handed over to the heathens, and that he was
himself given secretly into their power on his own.'

It is, therefore, possible that the /Gallic Chronicle/ entry of c.441
refers not to the Saxon revolt, but to the settlement of the second
contingent of Germanic troops in Kent. From Gaul, this event could have
appeared to be an occupation of the entire country.

If the entry of c.441 in the Chronicle of 452 refers to a second major
immigration of Germanic federates, it would follow that the Saxon revolt
occurred after that date. In fact, Gildas says that the British

supported the federates 'for a long time';[16]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1222398> apparently, a noticeable period of
time had passed between the second immigration and the revolt, in which
case a date of c.450 or later is suggested for the commencement of the
revolt. The /British History/ also indicates that the Saxon revolt was a
prolonged affair, with Vortigern's supporters (principally his son,
Vortimer) attempting to contain the Saxons.[17]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1224454> Gildas concentrated on the
after-effects, although his reference to 'repeated batterings' suggests
that the revolt was more than a short-lived episode.[18]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1226220>

Incidentally, one reason why Gildas has been doubted as a historical
source is his placing of a British appeal to the imperial authorities
for help against raiders (the 'groans of the British'), apparently
dating to 446 or later, before the Germanic immigrations.[19]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1227943> However, it has been argued that
Gildas was simply identifying the recipient of the appeal as Aetius,
military commander in Gaul, who was active from 425 to 454. If so, the
appeal could have been made in the face of Pictish and Scottish raiding
before the arrival of the Germanic foederati, without disrupting
Gildas's relative chronology.[20] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1234981>
Indeed, it is possible that the appeal to the military was associated
with the documented appeal from the British that prompted the visit by
St. Germanus in 429;[21] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1237042> the appeals
mentioned by Gildas and in the /Life of St. Germanus/ were both followed
by military victories against the raiders.[22]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1241508>

According to the /British History/, after a campaign[23]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1242853> of fluctuating fortunes, the revolt
ended disastrously for the British; Vortigern, still ruler of the
British, was humiliated.[24] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1243726> Gildas
remarks that as a consequence:[25] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1245947>

    So a number of the wretched survivors were caught in the mountains
    and butchered wholesale. Others, their spirit broken by hunger, went
    to surrender to the enemy; they were fated to be slaves forever, if
    indeed they were not killed straight away, the highest boon. Others
    made for lands beyond the sea; beneath the swelling sails they
    loudly wailed, singing a psalm that took the place of a shanty: "You
    have given us like sheep for eating and scattered us among the
heathen."

The disastrous (for the British) conclusion to the revolt evidently
resulted in the emigration of a significant proportion of the
population. Documentary evidence points to Gaul as the destination of
many of these fugitives.[26 <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1252222>] For
example, the military commander Riothamus, having reached Gaul 'by way
of the Ocean', was made an ally of the Emperor Anthemius in 469;[27]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1253533> and Mansuetus, bishop of the Britons,
attended the Council of Tours in 461.[28]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1254970> This evidence suggests that the Saxon
revolt had ended by 460. However, the emigrations could have commenced
during the revolt, in which case the Saxon revolt might have ended after
460.

If the Saxon revolt ended c.460, then the death of Ambrosius senior is

accorded a similar date. Meanwhile, Gildas specifically states that
Ambrosius Aurelianus was the `grandfather' of some of Gildas'
contemporaries, at the time of his writing the /De Excidio/.[29]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1257526> The documentary evidence therefore
suggests the following genealogy for the Ambrosian family, based on
generations at thirty-year intervals with an average life-expectancy of
sixty years and a floruit at around twenty-five to fifty years of age:

     Ambrosius senior   c.415-c.460
     Ambrosius Aurelianus    c.445-c.505
     an unrecorded generation

c.475-c.535

the grandchildren

c.505-c.565

This genealogy requires long life spans and the presence of Ambrosius
senior on the battlefield at Guoloph at a relatively early age. However,
these elements are not wholly unlikely. Anyway, it is not necessarily
the case that the opponent of Vitalinus, the rival of Vortigern and the
father of Ambrosius Aurelianus were all the same person. Consequently,
an alternative genealogy, based on twenty-five year generations and an
average life-expectancy of fifty years, is possible:

Ambrosius 'I' (rival of Vitalinus and Vortigern)

c.405-c.455

     Ambrosius 'II' (killed in the Saxon revolt)    c.430-c.460
     Ambrosius Aurelianus    c.455-c.505
     an unrecorded generation

c.480-c.530

the grandchildren

c.505-c.555

There are three points worthy of note from this alternative genealogy.
First, the floruit of Ambrosius Aurelianus occurs slightly later in this
version of the genealogy than in the simpler version. Second, the
relationship between Ambrosius I and Ambrosius II is unknown; it can
only be assumed that Ambrosius II was the son of Ambrosius I (the
documented ancestry of Ambrosius Aurelianus is referred to as 'Ambrosius
senior' in this article, even though it may have involved two
generations). Third, as Gildas was writing during the floruit of the
grandchildren, the above genealogy points to a date of c.530x560 for the
/Ruin of Britain/. This is consistent with the conventional dating for
this work, based on its chronological context and the writing style.[30]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1277869>



        The life of Ambrosius Aurelianus

As Gildas was denouncing the failings of his contemporaries,
particularly their impiousness, Ambrosius was presumably a Christian;
otherwise, Gildas would not have discussed him in such detail, and might
even have omitted to mention him at all.

The documentary sources provide further information regarding Ambrosius
Aurelianus himself. For example, the /British History/ includes a 'Tale
of Emrys', which relates how Vortigern tries to build a fortress in
Wales, and eventually gives the fortress to Ambrosius.[31]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1013195> This tale was clearly intended to
explain the derivation of the name Dinas Emrys, the fortress in

question. In addition, it contains details that range from the
inaccurate to the fantastic - not least alleging Ambrosius' immaculate
conception. On the other hand, some incidental elements of the story
could be accurate; indeed, facts might have been deliberately
incorporated in order to lend the tale an air of credibility to what
might otherwise have been readily dismissed as a total fabrication by
its audience. Interestingly, the tale brings together Vortigern,
approaching the end of his life, with Ambrosius as a boy; perhaps this
is an indication of their age difference.

In addition, the 'Tale of Emrys' ends thus:

    Then the king asked the lad "What is your name?". He replied "I am
    called Ambrosius," that is, he was shown to be Emrys the overlord.
    The king asked "What family do you come from?" and he answered "My
    father is one of the consuls of the Roman people." So the king gave
    him the fortress, with all the kingdoms of the western part of
Britain.

This text supports Gildas's assertion that Ambrosius Aurelianus had a
father of very high rank. In addition, it assigns Ambrosius a title,
Guletic, which can be variously translated as `prince' or `overlord',
perhaps implying a role different to that of a king. Gildas referred to
Ambrosius as a dux, which was the title of a military commander in later
Roman times.[32] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1016757> The /British History/
even describes him as 'the great king among all the kings of the British
nation'.[33] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1022491> It is difficult to know
what to make of this range of titles, although as Gildas uses dux this
was more likely to have been the term applied to Ambrosius during his
lifetime. Overall, these titles suggest that Ambrosius was not just one
of numerous local rulers - he was the pre-eminent leader. Furthermore,
the 'Tale of Emrys' ends with Vortigern giving Ambrosius all the
kingdoms of the western part of Britain; this can arguably be seen as
another statement introduced to enhance the tale's plausibility. In
fact, the /British History/ also notes that one of Vortigern's sons,
Pascent, 'ruled in the two countries called Builth and Gwerthrynion
after his father's death, by kind permission of Ambrosius'.[34]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1025928> Taken as a whole, these references to
Ambrosius suggest that he eventually succeeded Vortigern as the leader
of the British in the former diocese.

Gildas recounts how Ambrosius Aurelianus attained such an elevated
position. Following the catastrophic defeat of the British at the end of
the Saxon revolt - but even then, only 'after a time' - Ambrosius
emerged as the focus of a Romano-British revival:[35]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1027693>

    Under him our people regained their strength, and challenged the
    victors to battle. The Lord assented, and the battle went their way.
    From then on victory went now to our countrymen, now to their
    enemies; so that in this people the Lord could make trial (as he
    tends to) of his latter-day Israel to see whether it loves him or
    not. This lasted right up to the year of the siege of Badon hill,
    pretty well the last defeat of the villains, and certainly not the
    least.

It has been calculated above that the end of the Saxon revolt occurred
c.460, and 'after a time' suggests that there was a significant interval

(probably at least a decade) before the recovery, under Ambrosius,
began. Consequently Ambrosius's floruit probably began c.475. It should
also be noted that Gildas appears to regard the military campaign of
Ambrosius as continuing up to the 'siege of Badon hill'. Gildas'
narrative covering the later fifth century can be subdivided into the
aftermath of the Saxon revolt (25.1), the British recovery led by
Ambrosius (25.2-26.1), and the ensuing period of peace (26.2-4). There
is no indication in the text that the battle of Badon was separated in
time from the campaign of Ambrosius. Indeed, it seems that the initial
victory marked the beginning of, and the battle of Badon concluded, a
single campaign that was led throughout by Ambrosius.

The battle of Badon

The battle of Badon has attracted much attention partly because Gildas
highlights it as marking the (successful) end of the British recovery,
and partly due to references to a battle of Badon in the /British
History/ (the campaigns of Arthur), and in the Welsh Annals (for the
year 516). This British victory is usually credited to Arthur on the
basis of the latter two references.[36]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1029923> However, doubt has been cast over such
annalistic entries, which were compiled long after the event and were
relatively susceptible to amendment.[37]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1036459> As a virtually contemporary, detailed
narrative account, the evidence of the /Ruin of Britain/ ought to carry
much greater weight. Gildas not only fails to acknowledge Arthur as a
champion of the British cause, he does not mention Arthur in the /Ruin
of Britain/ at all.

Gildas's reference to Badon is somewhat laboured; 'pretty well the last
... and certainly not the least [British victory],' fought in the year
that Gildas was born. There are a number of possible reasons why Gildas
mentions Badon, and in such a manner. Firstly, it was not an exceptional
battle, but it was singled out because it was fought in the year that
Gildas was born.[38] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1043993> Secondly, it was
one of a number of British victories, singled out because it was fought
by Ambrosius Aurelianus. Finally, it was the decisive British victory,
which just happened to be fought in the year that Gildas was born.

The first possibility is the least likely. The fact that the battle was
fought in the year of Gildas' birth would not have elevated its
importance in the minds of the audience to whom the /Ruin of Britain/
was directed; it would not have furthered Gildas's argument. The second
possibility is plausible, if a number of British kings were carrying out
their own, localised military campaigns. However, Gildas identifies
Ambrosius Aurelianus as the leader of the British, which suggests that
there was one, co-ordinated campaign rather than a series of localised
conflicts. Gildas' convoluted reference to Badon is typical of his
complex rhetorical writing style, but his meaning is clear; the battle
was not the final defeat of the Saxons, but it was the greatest.
Consequently, the likeliest reason for Gildas mentioning Badon appears
to be the third option - it was the most important battle, which just
happened to be fought in the year that Gildas was born. Gildas felt it
unnecessary to name Ambrosius as the victor in that particular battle,
because he had already identified him as leader of the whole campaign.

As with most of the events that occurred in sub-Roman Britain, the date
of the battle of Badon is uncertain. The only absolute date offered by
the documentary sources is that of 516 in the Welsh Annals; but this is
an annalistic entry, and cannot be relied upon in isolation. Ian Wood
has suggested that Ambrosius Aurelianus's victory occurred forty-four
years before the writing of /De Excidio/, and the battle of Badon took
place only a month prior to Gildas writing his text.[39]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1045641> However, Gildas refers to Badon as
`nearly the last [battle]' and declares that 'external wars' were over -
statements which could only have been made with the benefit of
considerable hindsight. Wood <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1106701> also
argues that 'Gildas tells us that a previous generation witnessed the
double miracle of the Saxon revolt and Ambrosius Aurelianus' victory,'
implying that Badon was somewhat removed in time from the two earlier
events. But Gildas actually states that the previous generation
witnessed the revolt and the 'unlooked for recovery.' According to
Gildas, Ambrosius' first victory did not in itself constitute a
recovery, merely the beginning of one. Ambrosius' campaign was one of
fluctuating fortunes. In addition, the recovery was not completed until
at least one victory (and perhaps one or more defeats) after Badon.
Gildas refers to his own time as 'an age ... that is ignorant of that
storm and has experience only of the calm of the present'.[40]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1050235> It is difficult to believe, as Wood's
hypothesis requires, that this calm had involved at least two battles in
the preceding month. After all, the form of Gildas's text suggests that
there was a significant interval of time not between Ambrosius' initial
victory and Badon, but rather between Ambrosius' campaign (including
Badon) and the relative calm of Gildas' time. The most plausible
interpretation of Gildas' reference to Badon is that the battle did take
place forty-four years before Gildas wrote the /Ruin of Britain/.

Given this relative date for Badon, a more precise date for the battle
would be forthcoming if it was possible to determine when the /Ruin of
Britain/ was written. As discussed above, this work was probably written
during the second quarter of the sixth century, and the proposed
Ambrosian genealogy dates Gildas' contemporaries to the same period.
Placing Badon forty-four years before the writing of the /Ruin of
Britain/ would date the battle to around the last decade of the fifth
century.[41] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1054653> This would have been well
within the floruit of Ambrosius Aurelianus, and so it is quite possible
that he was the British leader at Badon as Gildas implies.[42]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1056322>

The Ambrosian dynasty and political authority

In order to understand how and why members of the family of Ambrosius
Aurelianus could have been so influential in the affairs of sub-Roman
Britain over perhaps five generations, their activities have to be
considered within the context of diocesan political authority. As the
nature of political authority is not a central theme of the /Ruin of
Britain/, the information that Gildas provides on this subject may have
been largely free from selectivity. The first words in the Complaint
section of the /Ruin of Britain/ are that 'Britain has kings, but they
are tyrants.'[43] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1063189> This suggests that

although Gildas questioned the quality of kingship displayed by certain
individuals of his time, he accepted the existence of kings at the
highest level of political authority in Britain. Yet little more than a
century earlier, the diocese had a centralised government that was
subject to the Roman emperor. How did the change from imperial, diocesan
government to kingships come about?

The /Notitia Dignitatum/ indicates that in the late fourth century
Britain was controlled by a vicarius. Under him, two of the five
provinces were governed by consulares, of senatorial rank, and the rest
were administered by praesides, of equestrian rank. There were also
three military commands: a dux and two comites.[44]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1064652> The title of consul appears to have
been in use in Britain during the early fifth century, and it is likely
that these posts were filled until the upheavals of 406-10.[45]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1067204>

According to Zosimus, upon the collapse of Constantine III's government
in 409, Britain established its own constitution.[46]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1069186> As the inhabitants of the diocese
asked for guidance from Honorius, they apparently expected the empire to
resume its control of Britain. Zosimus states that the civitates led
this appeal.[47] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1070863> In the absence of
diocesan and provincial officials such as the vicarius, who formed the
government of Constantine III and were presumably overthrown, the next
level of civic government would have been the local government of the
civitates. Indeed Gratian, one of the short-lived British emperors of
406, is described by Orosius as municeps tyrannus.[48]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1072487> If this means that Gratian was a town
official who had (from Orosius's imperial perspective) usurped power,
perhaps the authority of the imperial administration was being contested
by local officials prior to 409.

For the civitates to act together on behalf of the diocese, some form of
unifying mechanism would have been necessary, and this may been provided
by a diocesan council comprising representatives of the civitates.
Concilia provinciae had acted for the provinces on a limited scale
during the Roman period.[49] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1073668> The
empire did not resume control over Britain after the fall of Constantine
III, and it seems the diocesan council remained in control for a time.
Gildas mentions a council and its members acting for Britain prior to
the Saxon revolt,[50] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1076186> and in the
/British History/ a 'whole council of the British' was involved in
Germanus's second visit to Britain c.435.[51]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1077579>

However, the absence of imperial authority following the Rescript of
Honorius left a power vacuum in the diocese. The diocesan administration
had been answerable to the Praetorian Prefect of the Gauls, but at least
the authority of the diocesan government had been supported and
legitimised by the empire. The post-409 British government was
answerable to no one, but this also meant that internal problems could
not be referred to a higher authority. There may have been occasional
imperial interventions, including the visits of St. Germanus in the
420s-30s, but with time it would have been apparent that the empire
would not normally become involved in British affairs.[52]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1078895> It was, perhaps, inevitable that the
effectiveness of the council would have been compromised due to internal

tensions. Tribal, religious and political divisions may have been
involved, and personal differences were also a likely factor.[53]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1080129> There may also have been difficulties
in keeping the military commanders subordinate to the council.

Consequently, a new form of authority appears around the second quarter
of the fifth century - that of kingship. Kings probably originated at
the tribal level, as the dominant family of each tribal aristocracy
steadily consolidated its local political influence.[54]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1084614> It is likely that sub-kings controlled
smaller areas, for example 'city-states' centred on walled towns in the
more urbanised south-east part of the diocese.[55]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1086584> In the /British History/, St. Germanus
is said to have encountered a king within his defended city during his
first visit to Britain in 429 [56] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1088554>;
and Gildas refers to kings ruling in Britain before the Saxon
revolt.[57] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1091697> The title /tyrannus/
appears as well as /rex/, but it seems that the former term is used to
describe a bad king.[58] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1093884>

The rise of kingship was probably concomitant with the decline in the
power of the diocesan council. If Britain continued to be governed as a
diocese, it was inevitable that the tribal kings would attempt to gain
supremacy at this political level. Perhaps the first king to succeed in
this aim was Vortigern. Gildas claims that the /superbus tyrannus/, who
was probably Vortigern, instituted the policy of settling Germanic
/foederati/ in Britain. This person was apparently a supreme king, who
held sway over the council.[59] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1097416>
According to the /British History/, Vortigern was the emperor of
Britain, but was 'under pressure from fear ... of a Roman invasion, and,
not least, from dread of Ambrosius.'[60]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1099393> Whether or not Vortigern had usurped
control of Britain, he evidently had rivals and was threatened by the
re-imposition of imperial control of the diocese.

Certain titles, if not offices, may have been inherited from the
imperial administrative system. Although Vortigern might have been
expected to have taken the role of /vicarius/, the title of emperor may
have been preferred in order to emphasise his authority over the
military. Ambrosius senior appears to have worn the purple and been a
consul, indicating a senior role in government.[61]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1104183> One possibility is that the provinces
continued as administrative units after 409, and Ambrosius senior had
governed one of them. If the provincial structure did continue, one of
the roles of the council may have been to elect the governors (and the
vicarius/emperor), presumably from its own membership. However, even
under this system there would be pressure for such offices of power to
become hereditary, and so they would have ended up as kingdoms.

In this context, it is likely that Ambrosius senior was one of the kings
who assumed power during the second quarter of the fifth century.
Ambrosius senior's documented friction with both Vitalinus and Vortigern
(above, notes 8-9 <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1192770>) probably represents
rivalry between kings. That this rivalry was deemed worthy of record,
and that it involved the 'High King' Vortigern, point to more than just
localised conflict. These individuals could have controlled large
kingdoms from their heartlands by enforcing the allegiance of sub-kings,
or may have been nominal leaders of political factions.

An Ambrosian kingdom is likely to have been located in one of two areas
of the diocese. The first is eastern /Catuvellaunia/, which contains a
concentration of /Ambros-/ place-names, suggesting an association with a
person or persons of that name.[62] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1106222>
The same area has been tentatively identified as a British enclave,
centred on St. Albans, which may not have fallen under Germanic control
until the battle of /Biedcanford/, which occurred in 571 according to
the /Anglo-Saxon Chronicle/.[63] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1110894>
However, this means the kingdom ruled by Ambrosius Aurelianus and his
descendants would have been located on the eastern side of the island,
isolated from the rest of the British territories. It is difficult, but
not impossible, to see how Ambrosius Aurelianus could have acted as the
supreme British ruler in such circumstances.

The second possible location of an Ambrosian kingdom is the territory of
the /Durotriges/. It has been suggested that one of the few British
kings not criticised by Gildas was the ruler of the /Durotriges/ [64]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1123476>, and Ambrosius Aurelianus's
grandchildren also avoided incurring Gildas's wrath; perhaps they were
one and the same. In addition Amesbury, one of the few /Ambros-/
place-names outside /Catuvellaunia/, lies in Durotrigan territory.
Other, less reliable traditions link Ambrosius with Amesbury (see below,
notes 74-6 <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1124965>). The place-name Amesbury
probably means 'the fort of Ambrosius', and may have originally applied
to the nearby hillfort now known as Vespasian's Camp.[65]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1129227> This hillfort could have been
re-fortified during the later 5th century, as many hillforts in the
south-west were, in order to provide Ambrosius Aurelianus with a
stronghold.[66] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1130591> It lay south of the
Wansdyke, and might have formed with it a barrier against incursions by
the neighbouring Germanic territories to the north-east. Certainly, the
Durotrigan kingdom would have been at the forefront of British
resistance following the Saxon Revolt, making it an appropriate location
for Ambrosius Aurelianus. Other possible interpretations of this
evidence are that there were Ambrosian dynasties, possibly unrelated, in
both Catuvellaunia and Durotrigia; or that Ambrosius senior was a king
of the Catuvellauni, but Ambrosius Aurelianus came to rule the
/Durotriges/, presumably by marriage.

That at least three generations of the Ambrosian family out of four (or
four out of five according to the alternative genealogy suggested above)
were politically active, commencing at a time when kings first appeared
in sub-Roman Britain, strongly suggests that they formed a tribal
dynasty. The basis of Ambrosius Aurelianus's power was that of a tribal
king. His use of the military title dux (see note 31
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1013195>), along with his apparent supremacy
over the other British kings, indicates that the pre-eminence of
Ambrosius Aurelianus was due to him taking the leading role in a
military campaign (against the Saxons) that involved other British kings.

Ambrosius Aurelianus and Arthur

Gildas refers only to Ambrosius Aurelianus during his near-contemporary
account of a Romano-British revival that lasted for over half a century,

and does not mention Arthur at all. However, in the /British History/ it
is Arthur (not Ambrosius) who is named as the leader of the kings of the
British in twelve battles, the last of which was Badon.[67]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1136516> In the /Welsh Annals/, Arthur is
mentioned in the entry for 516: 'The battle of Badon, in which Arthur
carried the cross of our lord Jesus Christ for three days and three
nights on his shoulders and the Britons were victors.'[68]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1359057>

Another entry in the /Welsh Annals/, the battle of Camlann in 537,
refers to Arthur [69] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1361015>. The 'wonders of
Britain' in the /British History/ also mentions Arthur [70]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1142447>; he is twice referred to as 'the
warrior' in examples of wonders - the stone that returns if moved, and
the grave with fluctuating dimensions - that show how Arthur was
developing as a legendary figure even at this early stage. References to
Ambrosius Aurelianus in the /British History/ are restricted to an aside
during a discussion of Vortigern's family, and the 'Tale of Emrys'. The
generally mythical character of these references, which were compiled
over three centuries after the event, illustrates why the /British
History/ should be treated with caution. Barely another three hundred
years later, the Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth's /History of the Kings
of Britain/ is a totally legendary figure. Chronologically and
literally, the /British History/ stands midway between reality and
legend.

The /British History/ has a strong northern British bias.[71]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1145847> The list of Arthur's battles is
consistent with this, for most of the battles that can be located with
any confidence are in northern Britain - /Silva Celidonis/ (Caledonian
forest); /castello Guinnion/ (from Roman /Vinovium/ = Binchester, County
Durham); and /Breguoin/ (from Roman /Bremenium/ = High Rochester,
Northumberland). Badon is one of a number of battle sites in the list
that cannot be precisely located, although it is generally agreed that
it was located in southern Britain.[72]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1148978> Moreover, Gildas appears to have been
writing for a southern British audience, for the kings he criticised
were all located in what is now Wales and south-west England. If Badon
was fought in southern Britain, it seems out of place in a northern
battle list. It so happens that in different versions of the /British
History/ the eleventh of the twelve battles is named as either
/Breguoin/ or /Agned/, or both. It has been suggested that /Breguoin/
and /Agned/ were originally the last two battles on the list, and that
Badon was inserted into the list as the last battle later, with the
original name of the last battle either omitted, or conflated with the
eleventh battle.[73] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1571549> There is other
evidence that places Arthur in northern Britain. The battle of Camlann,
where Arthur was killed according to the Welsh Annals, has been
identified with /Camboglanna/ (Castlesteads, on Hadrian's Wall).[74]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1584131> The Gododdin, a British poem of c.600
telling of a raid against Northumbria, compares one of the heroes to
Arthur.[75] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1585621> At such an early stage, it
is likely that this is a reference to a local warrior, before the legend
began to spread around Britain. Considering these northern links, and
the absence of evidence that would place Arthur in southern Britain, it
seems likely that Arthur was a British leader operating in northern
Britain during the earlier sixth century; perhaps he was even an early
ruler of the British kingdom of Rheged. However, this does not in itself

explain why Arthur's fame increased, and Ambrosius' did not.

Although Geoffrey of Monmouth's /History of the Kings of Britain/ cannot
be employed directly as a source of information on 5th/6th-century
history, it can be used to identify changes in the received wisdom on
that history up to the 12th century. It might even be possible to
examine the processes that cause such changes. For instance, in one
episode of the /History of the Kings of Britain/ Aurelius Ambrosius
encounters Ambrosius Merlin - two forms of Ambrosius Aurelianus.
Aurelius Ambrosius is possibly a combination of Ambrosius Aurelianus and
his father. Ambrosius Merlin is an interesting character, a prophet who
also performs amazing feats, including the building of Stonehenge.
Ambrosius is also identified with Merlin by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his
version of the 'Tale of Emrys':[76] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1124965>
'Merlin, who was also called Ambrosius.'

In Geoffrey of Monmouth's account of the construction of Stonehenge,
Ambrosius Merlin the prophet undertakes the work for Aurelius Ambrosius
the king.[77] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1587937> This story is an attempt
to explain Stonehenge as the burial site of British elders massacred at
a parley by the Saxons, which may itself have been based on a tale in
the /British History/ that explained how the British were defeated
during the Saxon revolt.[78] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1594622> The name
given to the stone circles is 'Mount Ambrius,' which was also the
location of 'a monastery of three hundred brethren'.[79]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1596688> Stonehenge is not on a hill, but less
than two miles from Stonehenge is the town of Amesbury, and between the
two is the hillfort of Vespasian's Camp - the 'fort of Ambrosius'
discussed above (see note 64 <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1123476>).
Amesbury was the site of an abbey at least as early as 979, but probably
not much earlier. Amesbury church is dedicated to Saint Mary and Saint
Melor; the latter saint appears to have been an early (possibly 6th
century) tradition from Brittany, a very unusual dedication.[80]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1598377> A possible explanation for this is
that an early tradition linking Ambrosius Aurelianus with the hillfort
later incorporated the adjacent sites of Stonehenge and Amesbury Abbey.
Geoffrey of Monmouth's tale may have been an acknowledgement of this
tradition.

Merlin, on the other hand, is an essentially northern British
personality. The name is thought to be a derivation of Myrddin, the late
sixth-century northern British poet.[81]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1603049> Merlin is mentioned in the /Welsh
Annals/ for the year 573:

    'The battle of Arfderydd between the sons of Eliffer and Gwenddolau
    son of Ceidio; in which Gwenddolau fell; Merlin went mad.'[82]
    <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1608934>

Arfderydd is identified with Arthuret in Cumbria.[83]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1610866> It may seem remarkable that Ambrosius
Aurelianus could be conflated with such an enigmatic (northern)
character as Merlin, but even in the ninth century Ambrosius was being
credited with magical powers. The 'Tale of Emrys' in the /British
History/ credits Ambrosius with prophetic ability that enables him to
confound Vortigern's magi; Merlin was the next step in the mythology.

Ambrosius Aurelianus was apparently the foremost Romano-British leader
operating in southern Britain during the late 5th century. Unfortunately
for Ambrosius, his successors did not rule long enough for an Ambrosian
heroic tradition to develop. The southern part of the diocese, the most
Romanised area, was lost during the later 6th century to renewed
Germanic incursions. What native traditions did survive were from the
less Romanized northern and western parts of Britain. Culturally and
geographically, the historical Ambrosius was out of place in these
traditions. It seems his military exploits, which seemed almost
miraculous to Gildas, came to be expressed as magical feats. Meanwhile,
the role of warrior/hero was gradually conferred on Arthur, a northern,
British warrior. By the 12th century Arthur had become a legendary
warrior. Ambrosius, on the other hand, was of secondary importance, and
he had been conflated with Merlin, who was originally a secondary figure
in British tradition. During the medieval period, the Arthurian cycles
of chivalry and romance served to consolidate Arthur's central position
in the 'Matter of Britain.' This trend has continued to the present
day.[84] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1612309>

Ambrosius Aurelianus and the end of Roman Britain

Archaeologists once deferred to the historians when considering the end
of Roman Britain. As the rescript of Honorius in 410 was seen as a
turning point in the fortunes of Roman Britain, the sub-Roman period was
seen as being unconnected with the Roman period.[85]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1616725> In contrast with the imperial control
economy, there was a tribal society with an economy limited to barter
and gift exchange. Consequently, interpretation of the archaeological
evidence for sub-Roman Britain was constrained by the supposition that
the society and economy of the 5th century must have been essentially
different from that of the formal Roman period.[86]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1618611> This view was first challenged by
Richard Reece, who argued that the decline from the classical Roman
model of society had begun as early as the 2nd century, so that the
distinction between the archaeology of 4th and 5th century Britain was
much less clear.[87] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1620538> It is now
possible for the archaeology of sub-Roman Britain to be seen as part of
a socio-economic continuum, albeit radically affected by (mainly)
external events.[88] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1622844>

The documentary evidence also suggests that the society of sub-Roman
Britain was strongly rooted in the Roman period.[89]
<Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1625839> Indeed, many aspects of late
Romano-British society continued to the middle of the fifth century, if
not beyond. Gildas's 'Ruin of Britain,' and the fact that he was
addressing a wide audience, are evidence of the continued provision of
education in Latin to a high standard in Britain into the early 6th
century.[90] <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1626551> According to Gildas, no
single event clearly marked the end of Roman imperial involvement in
Britain. From his viewpoint, the Saxon revolt had by far the greatest
impact on Romano-British society, but there was not a complete break
with the old order even then.

The family of Ambrosius Aurelianus provides strong evidence in support
of the model of socio-political continuity in the diocese of Britain

beyond the end of the formal Roman period. The family's political
influence had presumably been established during the Roman period if not
the Iron Age, and it continued until at least the middle of the 6th
century. The remarkable exploits of Ambrosius Aurelianus in particular
serve to demonstrate the importance of the 'Roman' contribution to the
character of 5th and 6th century Britain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1164993>

Bibliography <Hunter-Mann2.html#anchor1163312>

Return to Table of Contents <toc.html>

Next <ziegler.html>