Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:36:10.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Brigantes: From Clientage to Conquest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

W.S. Hanson  and
D.B. Campbell
W.S. Hanson
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Glasgow
D.B. Campbell
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Glasgow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is generally assumed that the Brigantes under Queen Cartimandua had been formally recognised as Roman allies at some stage not long after the Roman invasion, though nowhere does Tacitus or any other ancient author make a direct statement to that effect. Cartimandua's reliance on Roman arms on more than one occasion, however, and her handing over of the fugitive Caratacus to the Roman authorities in A.D. 51 provide sufficiently strong hints that some such arrangement was in force. In modern parlance, she is characterised as a ‘client’ queen, although it is unlikely that this would have been the contemporary term applied. Precisely how long before A.D. 51 such a relationship had come into existence and whether with Cartimandua from the beginning is uncertain. She may have been placed on the throne after the Brigantian uprising of c. A.D. 48, although the scale of the problem, apparently dealt with quickly with only a few executions, seems more likely to reflect minor factional disagreement than a major revolt requiring a change of ruler.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 17 , November 1986 , pp. 73 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © W.S. Hanson and D.B. Campbell 1986. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Braund, D., Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of Client Kingship (London, 1984), 23Google Scholar and note 1 points out that the term clientela was used occasionally in reference to such monarchs in a metaphorical sense, but that the full descriptive formulation was rex sociusque et amicus.

2 Tacitus, Annals XII. 32.

3 CIL vi, 920; iii, 7061.

4 Peacock, D.P.S. in Hill, D. and Jesson, M. (eds.), The Iron Age and its Hillforts (Southampton, 1971), 161–88Google Scholar; Cunliffe, B.W., Iron Age Communities in Britain (2nd edn., London, 1978), 157–9.Google Scholar

5 Diodorus Siculus V, 26, 2–3; Cicero, Pro Fonteio 9 (20). Although some Roman goods spread widely beyond frontiers reaching friend and foe alike, the items concerned were predominantly associated with warfare and drinking. More mundane artefacts had a much more restricted distribution: Hedeager, L. in Kristiansen, K. and Paludan-Müller, C. (eds.) New directions in Scandinavian Archaeology (Copenhagen, 1978), 191–216.Google Scholar

6 Strabo, Geography IV, 5, 2; Tacitus, Germania 42; Cassius Dio LXII, 2. For a brief discussion of the mutual benefits of the system, see Braund, op. cit. (note 1), 182–7.

7 Tacitus, Histories III, 45.

8 Wheeler, R.E.M., The Stanwick Fortifications (Oxford, 1954), 23.Google Scholar

9 Allen, D.F., The Coins of the Coritani (London, 1963), 22–5.Google Scholar For the corrected reading of the tribal name as Corieltauvi, see Tomiin, R.S.O., Antiq. Journ. lxiii (1983), 353–5.Google Scholar

10 Varley, W.J. in Harding, D.W., Hillforts: Later Prehistoric Earthworks in Britain and Ireland (London, 1976), 128.Google Scholar The C14 dates of 450±130 and460±130 b.c. for the timbers must date the construction of the rampart, contra Webster, G., Rome against Caratacus (London, 1981), 91.Google Scholar

11 Ramm, H.G. in Branigan, K. (ed.), Rome and the Brigantes (Sheffield, 1980), 28–31Google Scholar; G. Webster, op. cit. (note 10), 91–3.

12 Simpson, G., Britons and the Roman Army (London, 1964), 11Google Scholar; Wenham, L.P. in Butler, R.M. (ed.). Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire (Leicester, 1971), 48–9.Google Scholar

13 B.R. Hartley in K. Branigan. op. cit. (note 11). 2–4.

14 R.E.M. Wheeler, op. cit. (note 8), 3–6 and 17–23.

15 Dobson, B.. Trans. Archit. & Arch. Soc. Durham & Northumberland ii (1970), 40.Google Scholar

16 Hartley, B.R., Northern History i (1966)IIGoogle ScholarMann, J.C., Arch. Ael4 xlvi (1968), 307Google Scholar; B. Dobson, loc. cit. (note 15); Birley, A.R., Britannia iv (1973), 189.Google Scholar For further discussion of the evidence for a Roman assault, see below pp. 85f

17 Turnbull, P., Durham Arch. Journ. i (1984).Google Scholar

18 R.E.M. Wheeler, op. cit. (note 8). 31–7.

19 P. Turnbull, loc. cit. (note 17).

20 R.E.M. Wheeler, op. cit. (note 8), 10.

21 Hartley, B.R. and Fitts, R.L., Antiq. Journ. lvii (1977), 93–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Turnbull, P., Yorks Arch. Journ. liv (1982). 174Google Scholar; idem, loc. cit. (note 17); R.E.M. Wheeler, op. cit. (note 8), 36.

23 B. Dobson, loc. cit. (note 15).

24 Tacitus, Annals XII, 40; Histories III, 45. For points of detailed textual criticism the following discussion owes much to the brief paper by Mitchell, S., Liverpool Classical Monthly iii (1978). 215–9Google Scholar, whose conclusions we fully endorse.

25 Frere, S.S., Britannia (2nd edn., London, 1978), 101Google Scholar and 116; Salway, P., Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981), 108Google Scholar and 133; even Birley, A.R., The Fasti of Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981), 48Google Scholar and 64. For earlier references, see S. Mitchell, op. cit. (note 24). 216–7.

26 Harrison, E., Classical Quarterly i (1907), 305–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Braund, D., Britannia xv (1984), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 G. Webster, op. cit (note 10), 89–90. The point was made originally by Birley, E., Roman Britain and the Roman Army (Kendal, 1953), 12–13Google Scholar, but not elaborated upon.

29 loc. cit. (note 27).

30 Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), 126Google Scholar and 311; Rivet, A.L.F. in Hartley, B.R. and Wacher, J.S. (eds.), Rome and her Northern Provinces (Gloucester, 1983), 204–5.Google Scholar

31 Tacitus, Agricola 17.

32 Tacitus, Agricola 31.

33 It might be thought that Tacitus was not in error in associating the Brigantes with the rebellion in A.D. 60 (Agricola, 31), but the passage deliberately highlights the leadership of a woman. There can be no question that Cartimandua was implicated in the revolt, so that it must have been Boudica and the Iceni whom Tacitus had in mind.

34 P. Turnbull, loc. cit. (note 17); Haselgrove, C.C. and Turnbull, P., Slanwick: excavation and fieldwork (Durham, 1983), IIGoogle Scholar

35 Birley, A. R., Britannia iv (1973), 181Google Scholar ; idem, op. cit. (note 25), 231. D. Braund, loc. cit. (note 27), has recently suggested that a passage of the Apocolocyntosis (12, 13–18) could be taken to imply that the Brigantes had been causing trouble in the late 50s.

36 E. Birley in R.M. Butler, op. cit (note 12), 71; B. Hartley in A.C., and Anderson, A.S. (eds.), Roman pottery research in Britain and north-west Europe (Oxford, 1981), 239–42Google Scholar has suggested on the basis of the samian ware that foundation of the full fortress may have taken place even later than is generally accepted.

37 Frere, S.S. and Joseph, J.K.S. St., Britannia v (1974), 34–8.Google Scholar

38 Webster, G., Arch. Journ. cxv (1958), 69–73.Google Scholar

39 Taylor, M.V., JRS xxviii (1938), 182–3.Google Scholar

40 Joseph, J.K.S. St., JRS lix (1969), 104Google Scholar ; Riley, D.N., Britannia xi (1980), 330–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 G. Webster, op. cit. (note 10), 99; Whitwell, J.B., The Coritani (Oxford, 1982), 46.Google Scholar

42 Brassington, M., Derbys. Arch. Journ. xc (1970), 22–30Google Scholar ; Wilson, D.R., Britannia vi (1975), 243–4.Google Scholar

43 Goodburn, R., Britannia ix (1978), 430–1Google Scholar ; Simpson, G. in C., and Hawkes, S. (eds.), Greeks, Celts and Romans (London, 1973), 84.Google Scholar

44 Mountford, A.R., Gee, J. and Simpson, G., N. Staffs. Journ. Field Stud, viii (1968), 19–38Google Scholar ; McPeake, J.C. in Strickland, T.J. and Davey, P.J. (eds.), New Evidence for Roman Chester (Liverpool, 1978), 16.Google Scholar

45 Rivet, A.L.F. and Smith, C., The Place-Names of Roman Britain (London, 1979), 142.Google Scholar

46 D.F. Allen, op. cit. (note 9), 13–19.

47 Todd, M., The Coritani (London, 1973), 11–16 and fig. I.Google Scholar

48 Webster, G., The Cornovii (London, 1975), 5–8 and 20.Google Scholar

49 Statius, Silvae V, 2, 140–9.

50 Tacitus, Histories III, 45.

51 Tacitus, Histories I, 60; III, 44; Agricola 16.

52 The problem of accommodation in temporary camps has been addressed by several scholars largely in the context of legionary battle-groups (see below, note 78). To arrive at a figure for auxiliary accommodation we have estimated c. 300 men per acre (740 per ha), a slightly smaller ratio, to take into account the greater proportion of horses which might legitimately be expected.

53 Joseph, J.K.S. St., JRS lxvii (1977), 130–1Google Scholar (for Wath); idem, JRS lxiii (1973), 214 (for Catterick). Some 850 ft of the E. side and 540 ft of the N. side are all that is recorded of the latter which could, therefore, be slightly larger than 11 acres (45 ha).

54 Wacher, J.S., Excavations at Brough-on-Humber, 1958–61 (London, 1969), 5–8.Google Scholar

55 Richmond, I.A., Roman Britain (London, 1955), 36–7Google Scholar ; S.S. Frere, op. cit. (note 25), 117 and 138. The argument put forward by Ramm, H.G., The Parisi (London, 1978), 27–8Google Scholar , to explain the distribution of Belgie material in Yorkshire (i.e. that they served as economic middlemen between the Belgie tribes of the south and the northern Brigantes under Venutius and were thus anti-Roman) is inherently unlikely. Moreover, if Stanwick is accepted as the capital of Cartimandua his conclusion would have to be reversed.

56 J.S. Wacher, op. cit. (note 54), 7–20; Johnson, S., Britannia ix (1978), 57–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 H.G. Ramm. op. cit. (note 55), 34; Corder, P., The defences of the Roman fort at Mallon (Leeds, 1930). 64.Google Scholar

58 A.R. Birley, op. cit. (note 35), 186.

59 Tacitus, Agricola 17.

60 Tacitus, Agricola 8.

61 B.R. Hartley in R.M. Butler, op. cit. (note 12), 56–7.

62 Stead, I.M.. Yorks Arch. Journ xlii (1968), 162–4Google Scholar , contra R.C.H.M. (England), Eburacum: Roman York (London, 1962). 6–8.Google Scholar

63 S.S. Frere in R.M. Butler, op. cit. (note 12), 16–17.

64 B.R. Hartley, op. cit. (note 16), 10–11.

65 S.S. Frere, op. cit. (note 25), 117; H.G. Ramm, op. cit. (note 55), 35–6.

66 For instance, B.R. Hartley, loc. cit. (note 16); S.S. Frere, op. cit. (note 25), 119–20, both following R.E.M. Wheeler, op. cit. (note 8), 23–6.

67 R.E.M. Wheeler, op. cit. (note 8), 23.

68 P. Turnbull, loc. cit. (note 17).

69 R.E.M. Wheeler, op. cit. (note 8), 15.

70 loc. cit. (note 16).

71 R.E.M. Wheeler, op. cit. (note 8), 10–11 and pl. xiv.

72 P. Turnbull, loc. cit. (note 17).

73 The presence of a sword and a single skull in the ditch at Site B were interpreted, almost certainly correctly, as trophies which had originally been displayed at an entrance: R.E.M. Wheeler, op. cit. (note 8), 44–5 and 53.

74 Tacitus, Agricola 17.

75 B.R. Hartley, loc. cit. (note 16); Richmond, I.A. and Mclntyre, J., Trans. Cumb. West. Antiq. Arch. Soc. xxxiv (1934), 50–61Google Scholar (for Rey Cross and Crackenthorpe); St. Joseph, J.K.S., JRS xli (1951), 54Google Scholar ; Wilson, D.R., Britannia vi (1975), 232–3 (for Plumpton Head).Google Scholar

76 Maxwell, G.S., Scottish Arch. Forum xii (1980), 39.Google Scholar

77 I.A. Richmond and J. McIntyre, op. cit. (note 75), 57. Nonetheless, it is worth stressing that the camps could still be the work of Frontinus or of Agricola, since the construction of roads generally came after the establishment of permanent garrisons.

78 The ratio between the area of temporary camps and the size of the forces contained therein has been the subject of recent reassessment. See Hanson, W.S., PSAS cix (1977–1978), 142–3Google Scholar ; G.S. Maxwell, op. cit. (note 76), 45–53; idem Scottish Arch. Rev. i (1982), 105–113. Estimates of between 165 and 480 per acre (c. 400–1185 per ha) have been put forward. A figure of 350 per acre (875 per ha) has been employed here, but should be seen as an approximate guide only.

79 RIB 2091.

80 Tacitus, Histories III, 45.

81 Syme, R., Cambridge Ancient History XI (1936), 153Google Scholar ; Ogilvie, R.M. and Richmond, I.A., Cornelii Taciti de vita Agricolae (Oxford, 1967), 219Google Scholar , although they do not discuss the identification of the multae civitates; Hanson, W.S., in Hanson, W.S. and Keppie, L.J.F. (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1979 (Oxford, 1980), 15.Google Scholar

82 A.R. Birley, op. cit. (note 35), 190. This depends largely upon the translation of ex aequo egerant as ‘had operated on equal terms (sc. against Rome).’

83 E. Birley, op. cit. (note 28), 15–16 and 40–41.

84 Pliny, Natural History IV, 102.

85 Mann, J.C. and Penman, R., Literary sources for Roman Britain (London, 1977), 14Google Scholar ; A.L.F. Rivet and C. Smith, op. cit. (note 45), 80.

86 Ptolemy, Geography II, 3, 8–9; A.L.F. Rivet and C. Smith, op. cit. (note 45), 290.

87 D. Charlesworth in W.S. Hanson and L.F.J. Keppie, op. cit. (note 81), 201–210, and information from M. McCarthy.

88 Ferguson, R.S., Trans. Cumb. Westm. Antiq. Arch. Soc. xii (1893), 344–64Google Scholar ; Hanson, W.S. in Fitz, J. (ed.), Limes: Akten des XI Internationalen Limeskongresses (Budapest, 1978), 4Google Scholar , contra Charlesworth, D., Arch. Journ. cxxxv (1978), 116.Google Scholar

89 Bushe-Fox, J.P., Archaeologia lxiv (1913), 299–301Google Scholar ; Shotter, D.C.A., Trans. Cumb. Westm. Antiq. Arch. Soc. lxxviii (1978), 203.Google Scholar

90 Joseph, J.K.S. St., JRS lxiii (1973), 217Google Scholar; ibid. lxvii (1977), 131–3.

91 Wells, C.M., The German Policy of Augustus (Oxford, 1972), 150–1Google Scholar and 153.

92 A.R. Birley, op. cit. (note 25), 71. This point has been made also by R. Syme, op. cit. (note 81), 152.

93 B.R. Hartley in R.M. Butler, op. cit. (note 12), 58.

94 B.R. Hartley, op. cit. (note 16), 13: idem in R.M. Butler, op. cit. (note 12), 57–8: idem in K. Branigan, op. cit. (note 11), 4–5; Jones, G.D.B., Northern History iii (1968), 6Google Scholar ; A.R. Birley, op. cit. (note 35), 189; Breeze, D.J., Scottish Arch. Forum xii (1980), 20–21Google Scholar ; W.S. Hanson, op. cit. (note 81), 15–17.

95 For Wales: J.L. Davies in W.S. Hanson and L.J.F. Keppie, op. cit. (note 81). 261–264; for N. England; Breeze, D.J. and Dobson, B., Britannia xvi (1985).Google Scholar 1—19; for Scotland: W.S. Hanson, loc. cit. (note 94).

96 Holder, P.A., The Roman Army in Britain (London, 1982)Google Scholar , quotes at least 69 units but does not indicate the source upon which this assessment is based. Using Professor E. Birley's records of units attested on inscriptions and diplomas, S.S. Frere, op. cit. (note 25), 182–4, quotes a total of 65 units in the early second century, but suggests that there would have been considerably more troops in the Flavian period. This judgement, however, is based simply on the number of forts attributed to Agricola.

97 None of the forts in the Lake District seems to have been established before AD 90; B.R. Hartley, op. cit. (note 16), 12; Potter, T.W., Romans in North West England (Kendal, 1979), 356–8.Google Scholar It is also a salutary archaeological lesson that it was not until 1973, after 44 seasons of excavation spread over 68 years, that the foundation of the fort at Corbridge was shown to be of late Flavian date and not Agricolan, or even earlier, as had been universally accepted: Hanson, W.S., Daniels, C.M., Dore, J.N. and Gillam, J.P., Arch. Ael5 vii (1979). 1–4.Google Scholar

98 J.S. Wacher, op. cit. (note 54), 19–20 (for Brough-on-Humber); S. Johnson, op. cit. (note 56), 78 (for Hayton); Buckland, P., Britannia ix (1978), 247 (for Doncaster).CrossRefGoogle Scholar