![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article provides a brief overview over military action in Roman Britain during the four centuries of Roman rule, taking a closer look at how the Roman army reacted operationally to military threats to Roman rule. It covers the use of infrastructure to rapidly move forces within the province and the establishment of zones of control both through military frontiers restricting movement and by placing garrisons within the province, depriving any potential enemy of the means to sustain himself
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. The literature on the location of the battlefield is extensive; for overviews see Keppie, “Mons Graupius“, Maxwell, A Battle Lost and Birley, The Roman Government of Britain, 88–90; as Tacitus’ description of the battlefield is not exactly detailed, a positive identification may be impossible, unless new archaeological evidence comes up; Hoffman probably sums it up best in stating that “we do not have sufficient information to locate the site from the historical account alone,” The Roman Invasion of Britain. Archaeology Versus History, 127–128.
2. The standard monograph on the legionary fortress of Inchtuthil is still Pitts and St. Joseph, Inchtuthil, for a current overview see Woolliscroft and Hoffman, Rome’s first frontier, 62–70; for the most recent work on the site see Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, “Inchtuthil Roman fortress”; Woolliscroft and Morris, “Inchtuthil Roman Fortress”; and Woolliscroft et al., “Inchtuthil, Perth and Kinross (Caputh parish), geophysical survey”.
3. Tac. Agr. 30–32 (Calgacus‘ speech), Tac. Agr. 34 (Agricola’s speech); the battle itself is covered in Agr. 35–38.
4. To take but one example, prior to his first invasion of Britain in 55 BC Caesar sends out a centurion named C. Volusenus on a beach reconnaissance mission, cf. Caes. Gall. 4.21.1–2.
5. Verg. Aen. 6.853.
6. Van Creveld, The Changing Face of War, 226.
7. One of the classic examples from North Western Europe is Caesar’s campaign in 56 BC against the Veneti, which ends with their physical destruction, cf. Caes. Gall. 3.16.4.
8. Millar, “P. Herennius Dexippus”, 26–29.
9. A Claudian site at Richborough has traditionally been connected with the landings of AD 43 and interpreted as a fortified bridgehead; see Manley, AD 43 – The Roman Invasion of Britain, 99–110 for a discussion of the archaeological evidence at Richborough and Frere and Fulford, “The Roman invasion of AD43,” 48–52 for an overview over the various attempts at locating the Claudian landing place.
10. The Claudian invasion of Britain has seen a fair share of scholarly attention; important discussions are in Peddie, Invasion; and Manley, AD 43 – The Roman Invasion of Britain.
11. For a recent description of the surviving fragments cf. Boatwright, Visualizing Empire in Imperial Rome 246–248.
12. Dio 60.22.1.
13. CIL VI 40416.
14. Tac Agr. 13.1. The literature on Caesar’s operations in Britain is quite extensive (Wintjes, Die Römische Armee auf dem Oceanus, 51n. 119), and they are usually seen as failures; one should however keep in mind that the first ‘invasion’ was little more than a reconnaissance in force which, despite various difficulties (see in particular Sheldon, “To the Ends of the Earth“ on intelligence issues of the operation), probably achieved most of its objectives. Belfiglio, A Study of Ancient Roman Amphibious and Offensive Sea-Ground Task force Operations, 61). The second operation (much more of a proper ‘invasion’ than in the preceding year) possibly ended with the establishment of a Roman client state (for a recent discussion of both operations see Wintjes, Die Römische Armee auf dem Oceanus, 51–57).
15. Suet. Cal. 44.2.
16. Tac. Agr. 24.1.
17. On Fishbourne palace Cunliffe, Fishbourne Roman palace.
18. For Rome’s wars against Caratacus see Webster, Rome against Caratacus, 48–58.
19. Tac. Ann. 12.34.1.
20. Tac. Ann. 12.35.1.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Tac. Ann. 12.36.1.
24. In the mid 50s her erstwhile husband Venutius tried to oust her; an invasion by forces loyal to Venutius was eventually defeated by the Romans, cf. Tac. Ann. 12.40.
25. Tac. Ann. 14.32.1.
26. Ibid.
27. The city of Camulodunum was destroyed; rather fittingly, the last pocket of resistance seems to have been the temple of the deified emperor Claudius in the centre of the city; cf. Tac. Ann. 14.32.1.
28. Tac. Ann. 14.32.4; legio IX Hispana was later transferred to the continent in the very early years of the 2nd c. and may eventually have been destroyed in 161 in a war against the Parthians, see Birley, The Roman Government of Britain, 229. The literature on the fate of the legion is extensive; the best brief overview can be found in Birley, The Roman Government of Britain 228–230.
29. Tac. Ann. 14.37.1. Tacitus does not provide a lot of information on the course of the battle; apparently Suetonius Paullinus chose the battleground well and, with his flanks covered by topographical features, waited for the Iceni to attack; once their charge was broken by missile fire the Romans counterattacked, routing the enemy and carrying the day; see also Hoffman 2013, 103–105.
30. Tac. Ann. 14.37.3 (poison), D.C. 62.12.6 (illness).
31. Tac. Ann. 14.38.1.
32. The events around the Iceni queen’s war against Rome eventually gained a reputation all out of all proportion, and in the 19th century, Boudica became a national icon comparable to Vercingetorix in France or Arminius in Germany. There is some historical irony in the fact that it was during the time of heightened imperial ambition in the latter half of the 19th c. that Britain chose in Boudica someone as a national icon whose main claim to fame was the – admittedly unsuccessful – attempt at checking the imperial ambition of an earlier empire. See Williams Boudica and her stories: Narrative transformation of a warrior queen, 185–202.
33. Birley, The Roman Government of Britain, 61.
34. Hodgson, The Abandonment of Antonine Scotland: its date and causes”,140–150; and on the fort at Carlisle see Charlesworth, “Roman Carlisle”.
35. Birley, The Roman Government of Britain, 62–71.
36. Tac. Agr. 22.2–3.
37. On Elginhaugh see Yeoman et al., Elginhaugh.
38. Tac. Agr. 38.3.
39. Tac. Agr. 25.1.
40. Hind, „Caledonia and its occupation under the Flavians”.
41. Birley, The Roman Government of Britain, 227–230.
42. On the Stanegate frontier see Hodgson, “The Stanegate”.
43. The literature on Hadrian’s Wall is enormous; the best introduction is Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall.
44. These forts (High Rochester, cf. Richmond “The Romans in Redesdale,” 88–108; Birrens, cf. Robertson, Birrens (Blatobulgium); Bewcastle, cf. Austen, Bewcastle and Old Penrith; and Risingham, cf. Richmond, “Excavations at High Rochester and Risingham”) which are usually called „outpost forts” provided nearly 3,000 men in partly mounted units (cohortes equitatae).
45. The exact chronology of the return to Hadrian’s Wall is unclear. Hodgson, “Were there two Antonine occpations of Scotland?”; and Hodgson, “The Stanegate”.
46. One testimony for such diplomatic activity may have been a treasure usually dated into the Severan period that was found in the hillfort at Birnie. Hunter, Excavations at Birnie, Moray, 1999.
47. Dio 73.8.1–6; and for Commodus’ title see CIL III 3202 and 3385.
48. Hist. Aug. Pert. 3.8.
49. In 175, more than 5,000 Sarmatians were send to various garrisons in Britain by emperor Marcus Aurelius (Dio 72.16.2); while the employment of Sarmatians in the Roman army was the result of a treaty ending a victorious Roman campaign, sending them to Britain may have reflected a need for mounted troops; and cf. Birley, The Roman Government of Britain, 160.
50. A significant part of the army that fought for Clodius Albinus at the Battle of Lugdunum in 197 (D.C. 76.6.1) will have consisted of units from Britain, which seems to have been largely denuded of troops.
51. D.C. 76.5.4.
52. The two most important places are the Roman forts at Carpow (cf. Birley, “Excavations of a Roman Fortress at Carpow, Perthshire, 1961–2”) and “The Roman legionary fortress at Carpow, Perthshire”; and Cramond (cf. Rae and Rae, “The Roman Fort at Cramond, Edinburgh“).
53. On Septimius Severus’ campaign in Scotland see Hodgson, “The British Expedition of Septimius Severus”.
54. D.C. 77.13.1–4.
55. D.C. 77.15.2.
56. D.C. 78.1.1.
57. Most of the marching camps in Scotland which traditionally have been identified as either Flavian or Severan seem to be in fact mostly date to the Flavian and Antonine periods, with very little evidence for Severan marching camps surviving, cf. Jones, Roman Camps in Scotland, 109–123. The interpretation of a campaign mostly supplied by sea appears to find further support by the conversion of the Roman fort at South Shields into a massive supply base. Hodgson, “The British Expedition of Septimius Severus”, 36–38.
58. App. Hisp. 10.71–73, Str. 3.3.1–7, Liv. Perioch. 55.10, Flor. Epit. 1.33.12; see also Sutherland The Romans in Spain 217 B.C. – A.D. 117, 79–81.
59. For an extensive discussion of the Roman use of rivers to support armies operating in Germany see Konen, Classis Germanica 111–154 and 297–347.
60. Anon. Vales. 3.
61. The so-called Traprain law treasure may be a testimony to that. See Curle, The treasure of Traprain.
62. Verg. Aen. 6.853; unless the community had already submitted before, in which case the second part of Virgil’s line, “crush to earth the proud” (debellare superbos), came into force and the community in question was annihilated.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Jorit Wintjes
Jorit Wintjes is a professor for Ancient History in the department of history at Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg and holds a PhD (2004) as well as a Habilitation (2013) in Ancient History from this institution; he also works as a guest lecturer for the German armed forces staff academy (Führungsakademie) in Hamburg. His research interests include Roman military history, 19th c. military history and the history of wargaming. Among his most recent publications are Die römische Armee auf dem Oceanus (Mnemosyne Supplemente 433), Leiden 2020; German Army Culture, 1871 – 1945, in: P. Mansoor et al., The Culture of Military Organizations, Cambridge 2019, 100-120; Das Kriegsspiel des Wilhelm von Tschischwitz (GIDS Analysis 3), Hamburg 2019; Die unbekannte Metropole – Antiochien und die römische Armee, in: S. Bergjan/S. Elm (eds.), IAntioch II. The Many Faces of Antioch: Intellectual Exchange and Religious Diversity, CE 350-450, Tübingen 2018, 75-102.