When we’re looking at the end of Roman Britain - especially on Hadrian’s Wall - the evidence we have is almost entirely archaeological. We have very little evidence about the thoughts and feelings of soldiers living there. Probably the best source for their lives are the Vindolanda tablets, which seem to date from 92-103 AD - at least three hundred years before the period we’re looking at and before the Wall was even built! It’s possible that more tablets will be found in the future - especially now archaeologists know how to look - but for now all that can be done is speculate from the facts we have.

The status of the Roman Army and the Wall in Britain in 410

To briefly unpack this - I’m choosing 410 as ‘the’ date mostly as it’s the traditional date for the ‘end’ suggest by the Rescript of Honorius (which is debatably reliable). The army in Britain had stopped being paid in cash sometime before 403 - their wages were the main source of coinage coming into the province - and in 406 they revolted and elected several leaders before finally settling on Constantine III early in 407. He immediately set out for the continent with some portion of the army, never to return (mostly because his head was on a spike by 411). The British may have expelled Roman officials in late 409 or early 410, although this isn't fully corroborated.

Some portion of the army - who were probably something similar to limitanei or possibly even foederati - almost certainly remained on the Wall. Some of these units had been stationed on the Wall for some time, having initially been drawn from elsewhere in the Empire, to the point where they were likely solely recruited from local communities which in turn were probably often a product of settled ex-soldiers on both sides of the Wall.

When we think about the Wall itself it’s important to remember that it was not an impermeable barrier. The Votadini directly to the north were probably a Roman client kingdom or buffer state. Valuable objects from Roman trade (or appeasement) have been found at sites like Trapain Law. Roman control in 410 likely had extended up well beyond the Wall itself, and that area and the people who lived there would have been familiar to soldiers on the Wall. The various larger and smaller forts would have functioned to channel anyone wishing to pass through under the eyes of the soldiers - whether that’s someone passing through with trade goods (possibly subject to tax) or traveling to their fields on the other side of the Wall. Rather then an us-and-them perspective with the Romans on one side and the “barbarians” on the other, the soldiers on the Wall were probably well connected with local communities on both sides - they would have been their neighbours and families.

What about the soldiers?

Unfortunately, without any written evidence we can’t say how the soldiers felt about any of this or the changes that Britain underwent. It was probably a fairly chaotic period for them in terms of news coming back from the continent - Constantine II’s ascension to co-emperorship, the sack of Rome, Constantine’s death at the hands of Constantius III - and it was likely fairly clear to them that (Rescript of Honorius or not) there was unlikely to be much official input (or cash) from Rome for some time.

It's unclear how much specific loyalty they felt towards the abstract notion of the Roman Empire and how much their loyalty was directed towards their own individual commanders - it having been a consistent problem since the early years of the Empire that soldiers were very prone to raising their own generals to the purple if not paid and babysat appropriately (1). If the Dux Britanniarium didn't go with Constantine, he may have been able to maintain his soldier's loyalties and control at least some of the north for some time, but without any written evidence beyond historical rumours about Coel Hen based almost entirely on genealogies, there's no definitive answer.

Without a central power interested in maintaining the Wall and paying the soldiers - a very expensive undertaking - their roles would have been pointless. Some of the soldiers on the Wall may simply have gone home to their families (assuming that their families did not live inside the fort at that point), while others offered protection (or “protection”) to nearby settlements - especially against Irish pirates from the east and Saxons from the west (2) - or perhaps struck out on their own. The new petty kingdoms that sprung up may have been shaped around former tribal territories and identities, which civitas were already built around, but also shaped by any remaining garrisons and military leaders.

At the same time, no one could have known that the loss of connection with the metropole was permanent, even though it seems obvious in hindsight. There was certainly still cultural exchange and trade happening; in 429 Germanus of Auxerre was sent to Britain to deal with a bishop promoting Pelagianism and figures like St Patrick were clearly Romanised well-educated Latin-speaking elites. They may have thought that they would be reconnected to Rome and that this was a temporary situation - after all Britain had been a fairly stable Roman province for just over three centuries or maybe thirteen generations, even if events like the Great Barbarian Conspiracy had been alarming.

How exactly any changes happened on the ground is impossible to say without written evidence. There doesn’t seem to be much evidence of violence - no burned out buildings, for example - which suggest that the soldiers were not driven out. Some of the still-occupied forts seem to have been abandoned fairly quickly - that’s the picture at Housesteads, for example (although this site is made more complex by the suggestion that there was an early church and possible monastic cells) as well as in towns like Corbridge. At Corbridge whoever may have still been using the Roman town were likely absorbed into the later settlement which made extensive use of the Roman ruins to construct new buildings, likewise at Pons Aelius (Newcastle). However, other forts like Birdoswald were maintained at least into the 6th century with some intriguing 9th century finds, and sites like Carlisle may have been continuously occupied, becoming the centre of the early medieval Kingdom of Rheged.

At Birdoswald, rather then sitting on the Wall looking at the “barbarians” and wondering about their pay, they seem to have handily reorganised themselves as a small walled town. Amongst other changes, one of its granaries was reworked into a feasting hall. It’s unclear whether this marks a return to more indigenous building customs or is a ‘foreign’ import, but what it does suggest is a change to a model where the local elite (presumably some of the garrison or descended from them) are demonstrating their status through expensive public feasting rather than the creation of expensive private spaces. This makes sense as a space for elite display in an economy with no hard currency where taxes may be collected in goods; there is only so much food you and your people can eat before it goes bad, and throwing a feast to share it with the community makes you look generous and powerful. This suggests that Birdoswald may have become for some time a local centre where services like blacksmithing could be accessed and taxes (or protection money, depending on how cynical you feel) paid.

Conclusion

We have very little evidence for what your average Roman soldier stationed on the Wall would have thought. It does however seem very unlikely that they sat around and thought of duty and Rome (or not for very long, anyway); rather they reorganised for the circumstances they found themselves in, likely under commanders they were personally loyal to. Although for many people living in rural Britain things may not have changed very much very quickly, for a specialised organisation like the military they would have had to adapt and work with whatever administrative frameworks were still in place or simply disband. On Hadrian's Wall different strategies seem to have been employed depending on the location with some forts abandoned outright and others reconfigured into new shapes that suited new circumstances.

1: enrich the soldiers and scorn all other men indeed

2: this is vastly simplifying the picture of sub-roman immigration into Britain, but that’s another topic.