Warlords: The Struggle for Power in Post-Roman Britain

by Stuart Laycock

They say that history is written by the victors, and consequently there is a tendency for the Britons to be forgotten in the story of the end of Roman Britain and the post-Roman period. Warlord will redress this balance looking at the extraordinary lives of British leaders from 400-550 and the strategies they used to seize and hold power during these turbulent times. The book focuses on key figures who have been largely neglected in history over the last 30 years. Starting with Gerontius, who rebelled against the Roman establishment, the story then turns the key figures of Vortigern and Ambrosius, who were faced with the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and finishes with a look at how British warlords such as Cerdic were forced to adapt to the situation and were compelled to seek power by working with the new Anglo-Saxon powerbase.

Genres: History

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[Howard Wiseman · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book builds on Laycock's earlier "Britannia: the Failed State" which examined the evidence (mostly from archaeology) for the disunity of Britain before, during, and after the Roman occupation. "Warlords" concentrates on the last period, and in particular on certain leaders, combining the archaeology with written sources for post-Roman Britain. "Warlords" certainly has ideas and evidence worth thinking about. However, it is a less scholarly work than "Britannia", and Laycock goes further into the territory of speculation.

Laycock's central thesis is that there was no national Brittonic identity, but rather only tribal affiliations, and that there was no authority recognized above that of local kingdoms, based around one, or sometimes two, tribal areas / civitates. Ultimately, I was not convinced by his arguments. For example, the existence of memorial stones that name people by their tribe does not prove that there was no sense of Brittonic nationhood. All the relevant contemporary writers I can think of (Constantius, Gildas, Sidonius, Jordanes, Procopius) identify the Britons as a nation and many imply leadership of that nation by an individual (the proud tyrant, Ambrosius, Riothamus, an unnamed king) at least at certain times. Laycock's attempt to localize these individuals to particular tribes is hard to reconcile with what these authors wrote.

As an introduction to post-Roman Britain, "Warlords" is to be recommended above most popular books which concentrate on the doubtful figure of Arthur. However, to be picky, there are a few weak points:

1. Why should we believe that one civitas, Dumnonia, "was quite possibly capable of supplying and equipping twelve thousand men" under the leadership of Riothamus in Gaul, when Leslie Alcock (_Arthur's Britain_) doubts that any of the post-Roman states could have raised even one thousand men.

2. Laycock quotes Roger of Wendover for the relations between Ambrosius and Vortigern even though, as he admits, this is possibly more myth than history. I think this information clearly derives the pseudohistory of Geoffrey of Monmouth.

3. Laycock accuses Bede of "losing the plot" by "allotting Aelle all the territory south of the Humber" but of course Bede ascribes to Aelle only the same authority as he ascribes to the later Ethelbert. There is no reason that a king of Sussex and nearby districts could not have have been held in the same regard as a king of Kent.

So in summary: certainly worth reading, but Laycock's case is not as strong as he makes it out to be.

[Robert Monk · Rating 3 out of 5]

A recent-ish addition to one of my favorite early Medieval subjects: post-Roman Britain. This one has one very interesting addition to the subject: what if the Saxons weren't called in by Vortigern to fight the Picts, but were instead a slow trickle brought in by many British warlords (including Vortigern) to be used against their local enemies in a bunch of petty conflicts? An interesting take on it, and certainly one that isn't outside the realm of possibility. Laycock shows us the positions of probably Saxon sites in the West, and they do appear to be on the borders of British tribal territories. So, not unreasonable.

The author's support for the idea that the Anglicizing of England was less British-vs.-Saxon and more Mercenaries-slowly-take-over is less so. Yes, Gildas was on a rant and isn't necessarily to be taken at face value, but the fact is that I'm writing this in English and not Welsh (or some Romance language). There are also a lot of "just maybe it's conceivable if you bend the evidence just right" type arguments. Still, I enjoyed reading it, and I'll be looking at the sources in a different light from now on, which is enough to make this worth checking out.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved this book. A superb picture of the chaos and lawlessness of post Roman Britain

[Alia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Algunos puntos de vista interesantes y un puñado de teorías un tanto endebles.

[Xenxo]

Interesting data, a lot of speculation.