|
En 407 Constantino se puso al frente de las tropas que aún quedaban en Britania y las llevó a Galia, donde buscó apoyos y se proclamó Emperador de Occidente.<ref name="Frere 1987 357"/> Las fuerzas leales a Honorio al sur de los [[Alpes]] estaban ocupadas defendiéndose de los visigodos y fueron incapaces de sofocar la rebelión, dando a Constantino la oportunidad de extender su nuevo imperio hasta [[Hispania]].<ref>{{Harvcolnb|Frere|1987|pp=358}}, ''Britannia''.</ref><ref>{{Harvcolnb|Snyder|1998|pp=19–20}}, ''Age of Tyrants''.</ref>
En 409 el control de Constantino sobre su imperio se derrumbó. Parte del ejército estaba en España, incapacitado para ayudar al resto de su ejército en la Galia, que fue derrotado por los leales a Honorio. Los germanos ubicados al oeste del Rhin se levantaron contra él, quizá apoyados por los lealistas romanos,<ref>{{Harvcolnb|Snyder|2003|pp=79}}, ''The Britons''.</ref><ref>{{Harvcolnb|Higham|1992|pp=72}}, ''Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons'', "Britain Without Rome".</ref> y los que se encontraban al este cruzaron el río y entraron en la Galia.<ref>{{Harvcolnb|Snyder|1998|pp=20–21}}, ''Age of Tyrants''.</ref> <!-- BritainBritania, nowahora withoutsin anytropas troopsque forla protectionprotegieran andy havinghabiendo sufferedsufrido particularlyseveros severeataques sajones en [[Saxons|Saxon408]] raidsy in[[409]] 408contemplaba andla 409,situación vieweden thela situationGalia incon Gaulrenovada withalarma. renewedViendo alarm.que Perhapsno feelinghabía theyesperanza hadde noalivio hopecon ofConstantino, relieftanto underlos Constantine,britano bothromanos thecomo Romano-Britonslos andgalos someexpulsaron ofa thelos Gaulsmagistrados expelled Constantine'sde magistratesConstantino inen 409 oro 410.<ref>{{Harvcolnb|Frere|1987|pp=358–359}}, ''Britannia''.</ref><ref>{{Harvcolnb|Snyder|1998|pp=20}}, ''Age of Tyrants''.</ref><ref>{{Harvcolnb|Higham|1992|pp=71–72}}, ''Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons'', "Britain Without Rome".</ref> TheEl historiador [[ByzantineImperio Empirebizantino|Byzantinebizantino]] historian [[ZosimusZosimo]] (fl. 490's – 510's) directlyculpó blameddirectamente Constantinea forConstaino thepor expulsionla expulsión, sayingafirmando thatque hehabía hadpermitido alloweda thelos Saxonssajones tosaquear raid,y and that theque [[Britons (historical)|Britonsbritanos]] andy [[Gaulsgalos]] werese reducedhabían tovisto suchobligados straitsa thatsoportar theytales revoltedcircunstancias fromque these Romanhabían Empirerebelado contra el Imperio Romano, 'rejectedrechazaron Romanla lawley romana, revertedvolvieron toa theirsus nativecostumbres customs,nativas andy se armaron a armedsí themselvesmismos topara ensureasegurar theirsu ownpropia safetyseguridad'.<ref>{{Harvcolnb|Snyder|1998|pp=22}}, ''An Age of Tyrants''.</ref>
ItHa hassido been suggestedsugerido{{by whom|date=November 2013}} thatque whencuando [[ZosimusZosimo]] recordsnarra thatla theexpulsión nativesde expelledla theadministración Romancivil civilianpor administrationparte inde los nativos en 409 hepudiera mightestar haverefiriéndose beena referringla torebelión thede los [[Bagaudae|BacaudicBagaudas]] rebellionde of thelos [[Breton people|Bretonbretones]] inhabitants ofde [[Armorica]], sinceya heque describesdescribe howcomo, intras thela aftermath of the revoltrevuelta, alltoda ofArmórica Armoricay andel theresto restde ofla GaulGalia followedsiguió theel exampleejemplo ofde the [[Britannia|Brettaniai]]Britania. AUna laterúltima appealllamada forde helpauxilio bypor thelos Britishbritanos communities wasfue, accordingsegún to ZosimusZósimo, rejectedrechazada bypor theel Emperoremperado HonoriusHonorio inen [[410 AD]]. InEn el thetexto textconocido calledcomo theel ''[[RescriptRescripto]] ofde [[Flavius Augustus Honorius|Honorius]]Honorio'' ofde 411, theel Westernemperador Emperordice Honorius tells thea Britishlas ''[[civitates]]'' tobritanas lookque tose theirencarguen ownde defencesu aspropia hisdefensa, ya regimeque wassu stillrégimen fightingse usurpersencuentra inaún theluchando southcon ofusurpadores Gaulen andel tryingsur tode dealla withGalia thee Visigothsintentando whotratar werecon inlos thevisigodos veryal southsur ofde ItalyItalia. TheLa firstprimera referencereferencia toa thiseste rescriptrescripto isproviene writtennuevamente byde theZosimo sixth-centuryy [[Byzantine]]aparece scholarmencionada [[Zosimus]]en anduna isdiscusión locatedsobre randomlyel insur thede middle of a discussion of southern [[Italy]]Italia; no furthertenemos mentionmás ofmenciones Britainde isBritania made,lo whichque hasha ledllevado some,a thoughpensar nota allalgunos, modernno academicsa totodos, suggestque thatel therescripto rescriptno doesse notaplicaba applya toBritania Britain,sino but toa [[Bruttium]] inen ItalyItalia.<ref>Birley, Anthony Richard ''The Roman Government of Britain'' OUP Oxford (29 Sep 2005) ISBN 978-0199252374 pp.461-463 [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=izIMUEgzjm0C&pg=PA461&dq=bruttium+honorius&num=100&as_brr=3&cd=2#v=onepage&q=bruttium%20honorius&f=false]</ref><ref>Halsall, Guy ''Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568'' Cambridge University Press; illustrated edition (20 Dec 2007) ISBN 978-0521434911, pp. 217-18</ref><ref>Discussion in [[Martin Millett]], ''The Romanization of Britain'', (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) and in Philip Bartholomew 'Fifth-Century Facts' ''Britannia'' vol. 13, 1982, p. 260</ref>
Historian Christopher Snyder wroteescribió thatque protocolel dictatedprotocolo thatdictaba Honoriusque addressHonorio hisdirigiera correspondencessu tocorrespondencia imperiala officialsoficiales imperiales, andy theel facthecho thatde heque didno notlo implieshiciera thatimplica theque citieslas ofciudades Britainde wereBritania noweran thela highestmayor Romanautoridad authorityromana remainingen onla the islandisla.<ref name="Snyder 1998 21">{{Harvcolnb|Snyder|1998|pp=21}}, ''Age of Tyrants''.</ref> TheNo ideaobstante, thatla there may have been larger-scale politicalidea formationsde stillque intactaún onexistieran theorganizaciones islandpolíticas hasmayores notno beenha completelysido discreditedtotalmente howeverdescartada.
AtEn thela timeépoca thaten thela que senvió el ''RescriptRescripto'' was sent, HonoriusHonorio wasse holedencontraba upbloqueado inen Ravenna[[Ravena]] bypor thelos [[Visigothsvisigodos]] andy wasno unablefue toincapaz preventde theirevitar el [[SackSaqueo ofde RomeRoma (410)|Saqueo de Roma]].<ref name="Snyder 1998 21"/> HeCiertamente, wasno certainly in noestaba positionen todisosición offerde anyofrecer reliefayuda toa anyonenadie. AsPor forsu Constantine IIIparte, heConstantino wasIII notno equalera toun thecandidato intriguesde ofentidad imperialpara Romeel andtrono byde 411roma hisy causeen was411 spent.su Hiscausa soncayó wasen killeddesgracia, alongy withtanto thoseél majorcomo supporterssu whohijo hadfueron not turned against himasesinados, and hejunto himselfa wassus assassinatedpartidarios.<ref>{{Harvcolnb|Snyder|1998|pp=21–22}}, ''Age of Tyrants''.</ref>
{{Clear}}
==Interpretative variations==
There are various interpretations that characterise the events in a way that supports a particular thesis without taking issue with the basic chronology.
The historian [[Theodor Mommsen]] (''Britain'', 1885) said that "It was not Britain that gave up Rome, but Rome that gave up Britain ...", arguing that Roman needs and priorities lay elsewhere.
<ref>{{Citation|last=Mommsen|first=Theodor|author-link=Theodor Mommsen|editor-last=Dickson|editor-first=William P. (translator)|year=1885
|contribution=Britain|contribution-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_WAKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA211|title=The Provinces of the Roman Empire
|volume=I|publisher=Charles Scribner's Sons|publication-date=1887|publication-place=New York|page=211|url=}}</ref> His position has retained scholarly support over the passage of time.
Michael Jones (''The End of Roman Britain'', 1998) took the opposite view, saying that it was Britain that left Rome, arguing that numerous usurpers based in Britain combined with poor administration caused the Romano-Britons to revolt.
==Factual disputes==
[[File:Mucking DSCF9230.JPG|thumb|Romano-British or Anglo-Saxon belt fittings in the [[Quoit Brooch Style]] from the [[Mucking excavation|Mucking Anglo-Saxon cemetery]], early 5th century, using a mainly Roman style for very early Anglo-Saxon clients]]
Regarding the events of 409 and 410 when the Romano-Britons expelled Roman officials and sent a request for aid to Honorius, Michael Jones (''The End of Roman Britain'', 1998) offered a different chronology to the same end result: he suggested that the Britons first appealed to Rome and when no help was forthcoming, they expelled the Roman officials and took charge of their own affairs.<ref>{{Harvcolnb|Snyder|1998|pp=25}}, ''Age of Tyrants''.</ref>
One theory that occurs in some modern histories concerns the ''Rescript of Honorius'', holding that it refers to the cities of the [[Bruttii]] (who lived at the "toe" of Italy in modern [[Calabria]]), rather than to the cities of the Britons.<ref>Birley, Anthony (2005) ''The Roman Government of Britain''. Oxford: Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-925237-8, pp. 461–463</ref><ref>Halsall, Guy ''Barbarian migrations and the Roman West, 376-568'' Cambridge University Press; illustrated edition (20 Dec 2007) ISBN 978-0-521-43491-1 pp.217-218</ref><ref>Discussion in [[Martin Millett]], ''The Romanization of Britain'', (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) and in Philip Bartholomew 'Fifth-Century Facts' ''Britannia'' vol. 13, 1982 p. 260</ref> The suggestion is based on the assumption that the source ([[Zosimus]]) or a copyist made an error and actually meant ''Brettia'' when ''Brettania'' was written, and noting that the passage that contains the ''Rescript'' is otherwise concerned with events in northern Italy.
Criticisms of the suggestion range from treating the passage in the way it was written by Zosimus and ignoring the suggestion,<ref>{{Harvcolnb|Frere|1987|pp=359}}, ''Britannia'', "The End of Roman Britain".</ref> to simply noting its speculative nature,<ref>{{Harvcolnb|Higham|1992|pp=73}}, ''Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons'', "Britain Without Rome".</ref> to a discussion of problems with the suggestion (e.g., 'why would Honorius write to the cities of the Bruttii rather than to his own provincial governor for that region?', and 'why does far-off southern Italy belong in a passage about northern Italy any more than far-off Britain?').<ref>{{Harvcolnb|Snyder|1998|pp=24}}, ''Age of Tyrants''.</ref><ref>{{Citation|last=Woolf|first=Alex|author-link=Alex Woolf|year=2003|editor1-last=Goetz|editor1-first=Hans Werner|editor2-last=Jarnut|editor2-first=Jörg|editor3-last=Pohl|editor3-first=Walter|contribution=The Britons: from Romans to Barbarians|title=Regna and Gentes|publisher=Brill|publication-date=2003|pages=346–347|isbn=90-04-12524-8
}}. Woolf cites the argument of E. A. Thompson but does not choose sides, saying that the issue is neither provable nor disprovable.</ref> The theory also contradicts the account of [[Gildas]], who provides independent support that the reference is to Britain by repeating the essence of Zosimus' account and clearly applying it to Britain.<ref name="Snyder 1998 18">{{Harvcolnb|Snyder|1998|pp=18}}, ''Age of Tyrants''. Gildas (''De Excidio'', 18.1) is quoted as saying "The Romans therefore informed our country that they could not go on being bothered with such troublesome expeditions. ... Rather, the British should stand alone, get used to arms, fight bravely, and defend with all their powers their land."</ref>
[[Edward Arthur Thompson|E. A. Thompson]] ("Britain, A.D. 406–410", in ''Britannia'', 8 (1977), pp. 303–318) offered a more provocative theory to explain the expulsion of officials and appeal for Roman aid. He suggested that a revolt consisting of dissident peasants, not unlike the [[Bagaudae]] of Gaul, also existing in Britain, and when they revolted and expelled the Roman officials, the landowning class then made an appeal for Roman aid.<ref>{{Harvcolnb|Snyder|1998|pp=22}}, ''Age of Tyrants''.</ref> There is no textual proof that that was so, though it might be plausible if the definition of 'bagaudae' is changed to fit the circumstances. There is no need to do this, as any number of rational scenarios already fit the circumstances.<ref>{{Harvcolnb|Snyder|1998|pp=23–24}}, ''Age of Tyrants''.</ref> There is the possibility that some form of bagaudae existed in Britain, but were not necessarily relevant to the events of 409 and 410. The alleged ubiquity of [[Pelagianism]] amongst the British population may have contributed to such a movement if it had existed, not to mention large-scale purges amongst the British elite over previous decades. Among the works that mention but skirt the issue is Koch's ''Celtic Culture'' (2005), which cites Thompson's translation of Zosimus and goes on to say "The revolt in Britain may have involved bacaudae or peasant rebels as was the case in Armorica, but this is not certain."<ref>{{Citation|year=2005|last=|first=|contribution=Civitas|editor-last=Koch|editor-first=John T.|editor-link=|title=Celtic Culture: A historical Encyclopedia|publisher=ABL-CLIO|publication-date=2006|publication-place=|pages=450–451|isbn=978-1-85109-440-0}}</ref>
{{clear}}
-->
==Notas==
{{Reflist|30em}}
|
