Maia, a Roman settlement with a small garrison to the south-west of Hadrian's Wall on the Solway firth, is frequented by barbarians - Scoti, Picti, Saxons, mercenaries, scouts, spies, informers, traders and smugglers. Tallow candles gutter and stink on the tables in an impoverished, gloomy tavern used as a meeting place by two Scotians, the spy, Uail maqq Carbi, and the warring king, Niall of the Nine Hostages. Both have learned that the Romans will not attack Eriu and indeed will withdraw from Britannia. Soldiers have deserted because they do not want to fight in Europe. Now that he knows this for certain, Niall intends first to extend his power in Eriu, then to retaliate against Ys, the doomed city. The meeting in Maia is one small step towards the doom of Ys.
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I don't know if that has already happened in the story, but the Legions in Britannia hailed the usurper Constantine as Emperor. It was he who insanely withdrew the last Legions, exposing the diocese to barbarian attacks and invasions.
That description of Maia and the seedy inn where Niall and his spy conferred reminded me of Irumclaw Old Town in A CIRCUS OF HELLS, where we see Flandry's fear that the Empire would soon abandon that crucial frontier world. And of the steps taken by Flandry to prevent that withdrawal!
Ad astra! Sean
An interesting alternate history; say the Britannic Emperor Carausius (280-296) wasn't assassinated, and his successors stayed in power by refraining from intervening on the continent and the 4th century Romans were too busy to pay them much mind, so that a united Roman-British state survived the collapse of the Western Empire...
Gratillonius might have ruled in Londinium!
But Grallon would not have been born if history had gone that differently.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I have read about Carausius, one of those "tyrants" who seized power in various parts of the Empire during the Crisis of the Third Century. You propose an intriguing scenario, but we have to keep in mind Diocletian's determination for a complete restoration of a united Empire.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Diocletian was determined, but he was also Emperor of a very large Empire that was in very rough shape, and by the time he 'retired' he was also apparently feeling like his job involved bailing out a ship with a collander.
How much effort a reconquest of Britannia would take would factor into his decisions. A tributary arrangement might have been tolerable to him, if Carausius had been securely in power with united backing from the (quite large) Britannic garrison.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I have rather a soft spot for Diocletian, who was, IMO, an able and well-meaning Emperor. This bit about him from Russell Kirk's story, "The Last God's Dream," has stuck with me since 1980: "He was a just man, imaginative, more merciful than most, a grand general, a great administrator." And this view of Diocletian was supported by Stephen Williams in his biography DIOCLETIAN AND THE ROMAN RECOVERY (1985).
But I agree, by the time time Diocletian abdicated in 305, he may have been feeling worn down and discouraged.
The scenario you suggested about Carausius might have been possible if he had not been assassinated by his treacherous finance minister Allectus in 393.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment