Guest Article: Wickbam - Procopius, Gildas, and the Unhappy Partition
Amidst his otherwise sober discussion of military and political affairs in the Mediterranean, Balkans, Caucasus and Levant during the 6th century, Procopius’ digressions on “Brittia” and “Britannia'' stand out for their bizarre and fantastic content. Procopius interperses improbable tales elsewhere in his narrative. In Book I, The Persian War, we hear of a man-eating shark in love with a pearl and an unnamed queen of King Kavadh who seduces her husband’s jailer to help Kavadh escape from the Castle of Oblivion.
But Book VIII, section XX of The Gothic War is remarkable for the extended nature of its fanciful and implausible content, portions of which even Procopius dismisses as mythological and untrustworthy. What is the purpose of such digressions? Plainly some of them are written in the style of Milesian fables to titillate and amuse the audience, complete with exotic locales and outlandish barbarians. Yet on the whole, Procopius’ narrative on Brittia and Britannia reveals real, if warped details about the political settlements of Britain in the 6th century, details that are independently corroborated by other contemporary sources, namely Gildas and Gregory of Tours, as well as archaeological evidence from the late 20th century.
Procopius begins section XX with an account of a war between the Warini, who were closely associated with the Thuringians and may have confederated with them, and the Angles of “Brittia”, an island which Procopius describes as the latter’s home and residence. He states that Brittia is inhabited by three nations, the Angles, the Frisians, and Britons. The exclusion of the Saxons is less problematic than it seems. Julian was the first classical author writing in Greek to mention the Saxons and he was campaigning along the Rhine when he wrote of them. A century and a half later, Zosimus reused the term, but exclusively in reference to Julian’s campaigns. It was typically Western authors writing in Latin who specified the Saxons as a distinct people and assigned them specific ethnic and cultural traits.
By Frisians, Procopius means the Saxons, or at least includes them under this definition. In the 5th century, linguistic, archaeological, and toponymic evidence strongly indicate the historic region of Frisia received a major migration of Saxons. Procopius’ information came from a Frankish embassy that included individual Angles, so it is hardly surprising the latter are mentioned by Procopius as a distinct people. The Franks themselves were a highly Romanized people familiar with classical ethnographic traditions, and continued referring to the newcomers to Frisia as Frisians in a classicising archaism.
At the time of the embassy, the Franks recognized the imperial authority of Constantinople, a recognition that was purely formal given their conflicts during the same period. As part of this modus vivendi, the Franks wished for the Eastern Roman government to recognize their authority over other former regions and inhabitants of the Western Empire and Procopius observes the Franks tried to claim authority over Brittia by claiming that Angles, Frisians, and Britons were migrating into Frankish territory.
The Irish historian E.A Thompson argued persuasively in 1980 that by “Britannia”, Procopius was actually referring to Armorica, where so many Britons had settled that in 567 at the Council of Tours, the inhabitants of Armorica were categorized as either “Britons” or “Romans” by clerical authorities. For this reason, the Franks had come to refer to Armorica as Britannia by the time of their embassy to Justinian. Gregory of Tours goes so far as to claim it had been under the dominion of the Franks since the death of Clovis, only to contradict himself later in his descriptions of endemic warfare between the Bretons and Frankish successors of Clovis. While there was little the Eastern Roman government could do to assist the Franks in subduing Armorica, apart from providing money, Constantinople’s recognition of their authority would have provided the Franks with a potent propaganda weapon against Armorican independence, particularly in the religious sphere.
The migration of Britons from Britain into Armorica was a straightforward historical reality. Gildas alludes to this when speaking of the British reaction to the Saxon revolt against the Superbus Tyrannus: “...some others passed beyond the seas with loud lamentations instead of the voice of exhortation. ‘Thou hast given us as sheep to be slaughtered, and among the Gentiles hast thou dispersed us.’ ” Procopius seems to understand that he is repeating Frankish propaganda when he states, “And the Franks allow them to settle in the part of their land which appears to be more deserted, and by this means they say they are winning over the island.”
Let us examine Procopius’ claim of the Angles and Frisians migrating to Frankish territory. We know from both Sidonius Apollinaris and Gregory of Tours that the Saxons were very active in Gaul in the 5th century. Sidonius’ language about their depredations mirrors that of Gildas and the Saxon penetration of the Loire Valley played an important role in the war between the Goths and the Romano-Frankish coalition circa 470AD. It is unknown if these Saxons came from settlements in Britain or directly from the Continental periphery of the North Sea. Since Procopius is speaking of events in the mid 6th century, we must exclude the activities of these 5th century Saxons.
Procopius states that the migration of Angles, “Frisians” (aka Saxons) and Britons to the continent was due to overpopulation. Gildas offers an explanation for the ongoing migration of Britons so as to escape military conflict. This may have caused Angle and Saxon migration to Gaul as well. We must also consider two other well attested causes. The first was the major cooling event of 536, possibly of volcanic origin, the consequences of which were recorded throughout Eurasia. The Annals of Ulster recall “A failure of bread” for the year 536 and Book of the Later Han records famine for that year. Two years later, Cassiodorus in his letters describes the famine resulting in Italy from the dimming of the sun.
The second major event was the Plague of Justinian, whose fearful mortality was recorded by Procopius among others. Maelgwyn Gwynedd, whom Gildas described as the “Dragon of the island” famously died of this affliction in 547 AD. The Angles and Saxons did not escape unscathed either, as the excavation of plague victims from the Edix Hill archaeological site in Cambridgeshire revealed. It is likely that a combination of warfare, famine, and plague drove Britons, Angles, and Saxons alike from Britain in search of safety and new lands to cultivate.
Gaul was no less impacted than Britain by these phenomena and in inviting new settlers into the “agri deserti”, the Franks followed the Roman practice of settling “barbarians” to abandoned lands in order to cultivate the soil and provide military manpower. Julian used the same administrative mechanism to settle the Salian Franks in Northeastern Gaul two centuries earlier. Indeed Gregory speaks of the “Saxones Baiocassinos” settled in the vicinity of modern day Bayeux and Bessin who provided military manpower for the Merovingians against the Bretons of Armorica.
Lastly, there is a Continental Saxon tradition of Saxon back migration from Britain to the continent and of military conflict with a continental Germanic population. It is much darker than the amusing story related by Procopius. The earliest to record this tradition was Rudolf of Fulda, a 9th century Carolingian monk. Widukind of Corvey, a continental Saxon chronicler of the 10th century, articulated a more detailed version. During a war between King Theuderic of the Franks and King Irminfrid of the Thuringians, a body of Saxons sailed to Northern Germany from Britain. On behalf of Theuderic, the Saxons attacked and defeated the Thuringians outside the walls of Burgscheidungen in what is now Saxony-Anhalt. Upon learning of Irminfrid’s attempt to make terms with Theuderic in order to drive away the Saxons, the latter, under the leadership of the warrior Hathatgat, stormed Burgscheidungen, massacred the Thuringians, and raped their womenfolk. Afterwards, the Saxons erected altars of victory and acclaimed Hathatgat as a great war leader.
The writings of Rudolf and Widukind parallel and diverge from that of Procopius in notable ways. The East Roman historian writes that the Warini pressured Prince Radigis to marry his father’s widow, Theudechild, sister of king Theudebert, while Rudolf and Widukind record that the Frankish king allied to the Saxons was Theuderic, Theudebert’s father. Widukind asserts a precise date of October 1, 531AD, placing the Saxon inflicted massacre of the Thuringians somewhat earlier than the Anglian war against the Warini. As mentioned earlier, the Warini were closely associated with the Thuringians if not a subset of them, so if Widukind preserves an accurate tradition, their manpower must have survived the Thuringian defeat and the Warini came to an accommodation with the Franks that culminated in a marital alliance.
But even if he preserved a genuine memory of a Saxon back migration, Widukind arouses suspicion for three specific reasons, among many others. He was writing four centuries after the putative events he recounts, while the contemporary or near contemporary sources of Procopius, Gregory of Tours and Venantius Fortunatus all ascribe the Thuringian defeat solely to the Franks. Procopius’ version is to be preferred since he was likely present when Belisarius captured Irminfrid’s wife and children in Italy and sent them to Constantinople. Secondly, the chief purpose of Widukind’s chronicle was to glorify the Ottonian dynasty and its supposed origins. Thirdly, the chronicle includes a legendary element also found in Nennius’ early Historia Brittonum, namely the Saxons deceiving the the locals into granting them land for a fortress, though in Widukind’s chronicle they so do by scattering dirt rather than cutting up oxhide. Widukind has the Saxons subsequently betray the Thuringians at a parley by killing them with long knives, before referring to Bede’s account of the Adventus Saxonum in Britain.
While Procopius’ narrative of Angles and Saxons leaving Britain is eminently plausible, it is his subsequent observations on “Brittia” (as distinct from “Britannia”) that defy credulity. Procopius claims that in ancient times, a great wall was built in Britain, dividing the island in two. The Eastern region is pleasant and amenable to human habitation while the Western region is so pestilential that men and even wild animals crossing from east to west will die within half an hour. We will give only a cursory examination of Procopius’ digression of fisherman ferrying the ghosts of the dead to Brittia since he explicitly informs readers they should treat this as mythology. This was a long standing attitude held by the Mediterranean world about Britain and typical of Procopius’ classicizing topoi. The possible connection of this story to traditional insular Celtic mythology is worthy of mention but outside the scope of this writing.
In regards to his statements on a wall dividing Brittia, this has often been taken as a garbled account of Hadrian’s Wall. It is interesting to consider the possibility that Procopius, who was so well informed of events as far away as Central Asia, should have had such unreliable and degenerated information about Hadrian’s Wall. Gildas seems to have thought it was constructed by the Romans shortly before they withdrew from Britain; Bede, who lived close by the wall and personally observed it, follows Gildas’ account.
When reading Procopius’ account of Brittia in particular, we should remember he is using information received from Angles in the Frankish embassy to Constantinople. Hence we get an obviously exaggerated size of 100,000 men in 400 (rowed!) ships for the punitive Anglian military expedition against the Warini, and the comically humiliating account of Radigis hiding from his spurned Anglian fiancee. Likewise, we should treat the account of the wall as an Anglian narrative. When considering that the Angles and Saxons settled the eastern seaboard of Britain, it makes sense they would regard the eastern part of “Brittia” to be the most desireable and indeed the lowland portions of Eastern Britain contain the most fertile and arable land on the island.
But what was the nature of the wall itself and why was the Western portion of “Brittia” described in such foreboding terms? Clearly it cannot be Hadrian’s Wall. Procopius makes no connection to Hadrian’s construction and anyways Gildas and Bede understood the wall to run from east to west, as opposed to the north-south configuration in Procopius’ account. Archaeology provides a credible solution. Peter Wade-Martins was County field archaeologist for Norfolk from 1973-1996. During his active career, he made detailed studies of earthworks in Norfolk and Eastern England. Five ditches he studied of Sub-Roman provenance are of interest to this writing: Fossditch, Bichandtich, Launditch, Panworth Ditch, and Devil’s Ditch.
These ditches today exist in a fragmentary form but were likely part of a more extensive system of earthworks during their original construction. They may not have been contiguous due to topographic features such as marshes, hedgerows and sunken lanes. Each was built roughly along a north-south axis. Exactly who built these ditches, whether these be Anglo-Saxon settlers, or Sub-Roman Brittonic authorities is unclear. Three other Sub-Roman dyke constructions in Cambridgeshire are of note, Bran Ditch, Fleam Dyke, and Brent ditch which run parallel on northwest to southeast axes. To the east of these in Suffolk is the Black Ditches earthwork, built along a north-south axis. These four ditches are believed to be constructed by early Anglo-Saxons.
With these earthworks in mind, the Anglian narrative preserved by Procopius becomes coherent. A system of dykes and ramparts roughly divided the boundaries between the Anglo-Saxon population and the Brittonic populations. A hard boundary akin to modern national frontiers is unlikely, but salients and dykes intersecting Roman roads could have impeded supplies and reinforcements to settlements near the earthworks and even forced the abandonment of cities without needing to storm them. From an Anglian perspective, westward movement would have been met with armed force and if Procopius was correct in claiming they lacked cavalry, attempts to breach Brittonic earthworks or cross over from their own with infantry would be more easily detected beforehand.
The earthworks served another purpose. Even more so than deterring enemy attack, they could block the livestock of hostile neighbors from grazing in one’s own territory or hinder the ability of raiders to steal animals from friendly territory. Armed bodies of men would have struggled to bring the requisite herds needed to sustain them for an extended campaign over the ditches and ramparts in a timely fashion. These would have all been important considerations for the early Anglo-Saxons who chiefly measured their wealth in cattle.
If the Anglian envoys in the embassy to Constantinople boasted of their military prowess over the Warini, they may not have admitted to being confined to Eastern Britain by the resistance of another population and instead invented tales of a poisoned land oddly reminiscent, if only by coincidence, of the Wasteland from Grail legend. Alternatively, they may simply have been misunderstood through linguistic and cultural barriers.
The division of territory in Britain is alluded to by Gildas. In DECB, he speaks of an “unhappy partition with the barbarians” (lugubre divortium barbarorum), an ambiguous comment meant as an aside in a passage about Christian martyrs during the later Roman persecutions. The simplest explanation is that he was implying a territorial division with the barbarians. Patrick Sims-Williams has argued that we should not think of the partition as a fixed line across a map. Given the tribalistic nature of the Britons and their tendency towards infighting and the opportunistic and contingent nature of the Anglo-Saxon settlement, it seems likely that the partition only roughly corresponded to a geographic division. There were perhaps Anglo-Saxon enclaves in the west and likely Brittonic enclaves in the east, a notion supported by Brittonic origin toponyms in Eastern Britain as pointed out by Nicholas Higham.
In conclusion, Procopius’ otherworldly and mystifying statements about “Britannia” and “Brittia” make sense when considering the writings of Gildas, Gregory and other contemporaneous authors along with known archaeological evidence. Britannia is Armorica, so named for the extensive Brittonic migration to the region and Brittia is the island of Britain. In addition the movement of Angles and Saxons back to the continent is corroborated by Gregory of Tours and circumstantially supported by concurrent pressures of plague, famine, and warfare. We may infer that Procopius’ description of a wall dividing Britain reflects the political conditions at the time; namely that military resistance by the Brittonic inhabitants imposed either a de jure or de facto settlement with the Anglo-Saxons that resulted in a partition, perhaps in the aftermath of the British victory at Badon.
If you enjoyed this you can find my friend Wickbam here on X/Twitter
I've always been dissatisfied by the references to walls in Gildas and Propcopius and think the dyke explanation to be the more realistic. The settling of a 'border' in the mid to late 400s using dykes is definitely in line with 'Roman' practice and could simply be a sub Roman attempt at controlling and defending territory.
Thanks for this interesting and detailed discussion of Procopius and Brittia/Brittania. It's something I've always found interesting so it was great to dive into it a little deeper.