The Creation of Four Provinces in Britain by Diocletian

Author(s): J. C. Mann
Source: Britannia , 1998, Vol. 29 (1998), pp. 339-341
Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/526829

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Britannia

This content downloaded from

60.227.94.14 on Wed, 22 Nov 2023 13:00:48 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES 339

All of the activities m

whatever the precise
subjection to the burea

Milton Keynes

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bird, J., Hassall, M., and Sheldon, H. 1996: Interpreting Roman London, Oxbow mono
Dobson, B. 1978: Die Primipilares, Bonn
Jones, A.H.M. 1964: The Later Roman Empire, London
Mann, J.C. 1996: Britain and the Roman Empire, Aldershot
Mann, J.C., and Breeze, D.J. 1987: 'Ptolemy, Tacitus and the tribes of northern B
85-91

The Creation of Four Provinces in Britain by Diocletian. J.C. Mann writes: So far as we know, the
subdivision indicated by Cassius Dio244 as operating about A.D. 215 continued down to the recovery of
Britain from Allectus in A.D. 297. In passing, it is worth noting that after Gregory the Great sent
Augustine to Britain in A.D. 597, he ordered him to establish a metropolitan bishopric in London and
another at York, each of whom was to consecrate twelve bishops in his province. Since at that time
Augustine had no access to either London or York, it seems likely that Gregory was basing his proposed
organization on documents relating to the British Church which he found in the papal archives.245 Since
only two metropolitans were to be appointed, it seems clear that Gregory had found nothing of later date
than third-century in the archives, otherwise he would have had to authorize the appointment of four (or
five) metropolitans.
It has been suggested that, after A.D. 297, Diocletian (in theory along with Maximian) established a
third province by taking some city territories from each of the two existing provinces and forming the
new province in between them. This new province, it is claimed, was named Caesariensis, or Britannia
Caesariensis (or Maxima Caesariensis), taking that name from its capital, a city named Caesarea. The
new province was then later subdivided into Flavia Caesariensis and Maxima Caesariensis.
It has to be said at once that there is no evidence whatsoever that any British city was ever named
Caesarea. It has also to be said that when provinces were subdivided, whether during the Principate or
under Diocletian or later, it was not normal procedure to take city territories from the adjacent parts of
two provinces, thus creating a new province in between. Most subdivisions of provinces are simply
that - the province is divided, whether it was Moesia in the early A.D. 80s, or Pannonia shortly after
A.D. IOO, or Dacia after io6, or Syria in 194, or Britain in 197. Under Diocletian, Mauretania Sitifensis is
simply carved out of Mauretania Caesariensis, Sequania out of the southern half of Germania Superior,
Valeria out of the northern part of Pannonia Inferior, and Scythia out of the northern part of Moesia
Inferior. In general, a new province is merely a part of a previous province. The only exception seems to
be the special case of the new province of Dacia south of the Danube, which included city territories
taken from Moesia Superior, Thrace, and Moesia Inferior. But then, Aurelian was virtually pretending
that Dacia north of the Danube had not been permanently given up at all.
Occasionally, individual cities might be transferred to a different province, apparently simply for
administrative convenience, by equalizing the size of provinces. Thus the Lingones were transferred from
Sequania to Lugdunensis Prima, and the Tungri from Gallia Belgica to Germania Secunda. It is difficult
to see any point in creating a province which took its city territories from two other provinces: it seems a
recipe for conflict. It is also difficult to see how, if this new province were later divided, both halves could
be named Caesariensis, as if both were claiming that its capital was still Caesarea.
It is more probable that Maxima Caesariensis and Flavia Caesariensis were created at the same time-
but with a difference. As Richard Goodchild suggested to me, in a letter written shortly before he died,

243 Jones 1964, 19.

244 Cassius Dio 55.23.2-6.
245 Bede, H.E 1.29.

This content downloaded from

60.227.94.14 on Wed, 22 Nov 2023 13:00:48 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
340 NOTES

Flavia Caesariensis

York

Lincoln

Britannia Secunda

Britannia Prima

Galeria Caesariensis

Maxima Caesariensis
Cirencester

London

0 150 km

FIG. 7. Map showing fou

This content downloaded from

60.227.94.14 on Wed, 22 Nov 2023 13:00:48 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES 341

the two provinces wer

Galerius and Constant
London province, sinc
the diocese, and Gale
standing second only
was assumed shortly a
he disliked) and subst
Caesariensis and Flavia
A near parallel to thi
Pannonia Inferior was
and the two legions s
honour of the daughte
continued in use for t
Herculia.
A later example is, of course, Valentia, created after the campaigns of Count Theodosius, in A.D. 367/8.
This is surely named in honour of Valens, and it seems very probable that, on the analogy of Valeria, it
was formed around the old capital of the northern province, York, and included territory which had
fallen 'in dicionem . .. hostium'.247 This no doubt refers largely to the area which later became Yorkshire,
including especially the eastern part, to protect which there was later constructed that string of watch-
towers along the north Yorkshire coast, which it has elsewhere been suggested might be dubbed the
'Pictish Shore'.248 The south-eastern part of Britannia Inferior will have become Britannia Secunda, with
Lincoln as its capital (see FIG. 7).

Milton Keynes

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mann, J.C. 1996: Britannia and the Roman Empire, Aldershot

New Evidence from Aerial Reconnaissance for Roman Military Sites in Cheshire.
writes: A programme of aerial photographic reconnaissance249 by the writer and
Cheshire County Council since 1987 in the Lowland North-West has revealed new e
military sites in Cheshire. Geographically the sites fall into three groups: a group
camps close to Chester, a fortlet overlooking the Mersey estuary at Ince, and a Roma
(FIG. 8). The purpose of this note is to report briefly on fieldwork at one of the
attention to the new discoveries in the hope that they can take their place among be
contributing to an understanding of the Roman military history of the North-West o

ROMAN CAMPS TO THE NORTH AND EAST OF CHESTER

The first group consists of a series of subrectangular enclosures within a few kilo
(FIG. 9). Prior to the present programme of aerial reconnaissance, two enclosures had
Upton Heath, Upton-by-Chester. One of these, Upton 3, first observed in 1964, ha

246 The Verona List was dated to A.D. 312/20 by A.H.M. Jones, JRS 44 (1954), 21-9. If, a
Antiquity 35 (1961), 316 n. I = Mann 1996, 141, CIL VIII. 18905 is taken into consideration, the
down to A.D. 312/14. The List thus probably indicates the division of the Empire between Con
after the death of Maximinus Daia in A.D. 313. Further evidence that London was the capital of
is discussed in Antiquity 35 (1961), 316-20 = Mann 1996, 141.
247 Ammianus 28.3-7.
248 CBA Research Report 18, 1977, 14 = Mann, 1996, 244.
249 The programme of aerial reconnaissance has been supported by the National Museums
Merseyside (NMGM) with grant-aid from Cheshire County Council and the Royal Comm
Monuments (England). I am grateful to Dr Jill Collens of Environmental Planning, Cheshire
much assistance and valuable discussion in the preparation of this paper.

This content downloaded from

60.227.94.14 on Wed, 22 Nov 2023 13:00:48 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms