Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T00:10:38.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Invasion of Britain in A.D. 43 — An Alternative Strategy for Aulus Plautius*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

J.G.F. Hind
J.G.F. Hind
Affiliation:
School of History, University of Leeds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The invasion of Britain, which was carried out by four legions plus auxiliaries under A. Plautius some time in the high summer of A.D. 43, and the subsequent sixteen-day expedition made by the emperor, Claudius, in person in the autumn of that year, form together one of the most famous, if not one of the best understood, episodes in the history of the Roman Empire. In spite of the apparent familiarity of the event our knowledge of the way in which the invasion was planned, and of the route followed, is scanty in the extreme. It is based in part on a very brief summary of Claudius' own journey to Britain, which was a separate expedition of reinforcement, undertaken in order to associate Claudius personally with the prestige of the project. This is described by Suetonius in his Divus Claudius, written some eighty years after the event, but the chief source for the whole invasion is the narrative in Greek given by the historian Cassius Dio some century and a half after the expedition. To these can be added short references of a mere sentence in length, also in Suetonius' Caesares. They relate to the presence of the future emperor, Galba, in Claudius' entourage in Gaul, and to the large part played by Vespasian, and his brother and son, in the early stages of the Roman conquest. Another, and earlier, mention of Vespasian's part in the conquest is to be found in Josephus' Bellum Judaicum, but it contributes no useful or circumstantial detail, and indeed nothing but praise of Josephus' patrons, the Flavian dynasty. Later Roman historians, such as Aurelius Victor and the anonymous writer of De Caesaribus, merely give abbreviated versions of the already meagre information retailed by the historians of the second and early third centuries. Eutropius does add some circumstantial detail, namely that Gn. Sentius (Saturninus) was jointly in command of the expedition with A. Plautius, and that the Orkney Islands (Orcades) were received under Roman control by Claudius. This submission, if it is historical, must have been received through envoys at very long distance, while Claudius was in Colchester. This latter item is repeated by the early fifth-century Christian writer, Orosius.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 20 , November 1989 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © J.G.F. Hind 1989. 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 Suetonius, Divus Claudius, 17.

2 Cassius Dio. lx, 19–23.

3 Suetonius, Galba, 7.

4 Suetonius, Divus Vespasianus, 4.

5 Josephus, Bellum Judaicum, iii, 4.

6 Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus. 4.

7 Eutropius, Breviarium, vii, 13, 2–9.

8 Orosius, Hist. adv. Paganos, vii, 6. 9.

9 Pliny, Nat. Hist., xxxiii, 54.

10 Anthologia Latina Vol. 1 (ed. Riese), Nos. 419–26.

11 Anonymus Epitome De Caesaribus…, 4.

12 Tacitus, Agricola, 13–14.

13 Josephus, Bell. Jud., iii, 4.

14 Suetonius, Div. Vesp., 4.

15 For these hill-forts and signs of their reduction by the Roman army, Dudley, D. and Webster, G., The Roman Conquest of Britain (1965), 98–103Google Scholar ; S.S. Frere, Britannia (1978); Webster, G., Britannia i (1970), 180–1Google Scholar ; Webster, G., The Roman Invasion of Britain (1980), 107–110.Google Scholar

16 Cunliffe, B., The Regni (1973), 16–19.Google Scholar

17 Dudley and Webster, op. cit. (note 15), 89ff.; Webster, op. cit. (note 15, 1970), 181.

18 Eichholz, D.E., Britannia iii (1972), 149–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Suetonius, Divus Titus, 4.

20 Cassius Dio, lx, 30.1. It is very doubtful whether this reference should be linked with the Claudian invasion, since Titus would have been only a boy. Perhaps it belongs to the Jewish Revolt period A.D. 67–70.

21 Suetonius, Divus Claudius, 17. Caligula. 44; Allen, D.. Britannia vii (1976), 96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 For speculation on the meaning of tumultuantem see Frere, S.S.. Britannia (1978). 78ff.Google Scholar

23 Barrett, A.A.. Britannia xi (1980), 31–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 De Britannis, H. Mattingly, Roman Coins (Methuen); Dudley and Webster, op. cit. (note 15), 18, pl. 13; Webster, op. cit. (note 15), 169 and pl. 3.

25 C.I.L. vi.920 + C.I.L. iii.5.7061 = Dessau, ILS 217. See most conveniently Dudley and Webster, op. cit. (note 15), Appendix iii, 185–6.

26 Suetonius, Divus Claudius, 17. Dudley, D., Univ. Birmingham Hist. Journ. viii (1959), 11ff.Google Scholar ; Dudley and Webster, op. cit. (note 15), App. iii. Hind, J.G.F., Greece and Rome xxi (1974), 68–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 R.I.B., I, 91; Dudley and Webster, op. cit. (note 15), App. ii, 184. For a new reading of the damaged part of the inscription and a revised interpretation of Cogidubnus' status (probably not a legatus Augusti), see Bogaers, J.E. in Britannia x (1979), 243–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and earlier, for considerations of Cogidubnus' career; Birley, E., Britannia ix (1978), 244–5.Google ScholarFabri might be ferrarii or aerarii, blacksmiths or bronzesmiths, but the most common fabri worked in timber (tignarii). Perhaps most significant are the fabri ordered to rebuild the storm-shattered fleet of Caesar, BG, V, 11.3.

28 Tacitus, Agricola, 14.

29 B. Cunliffe, Fishbourne i (1969); Cunliffe, B., Fishbourne — a Roman Palace and its Garden (1971), 23Google Scholar ; Cunliffe, B., The Regni (1973). 20–7Google Scholar ; Boon, G., Silchester, The Roman Town of Calleva (1974), 43.Google Scholar

30 Translations of the passage of Cassius Dio, lx, 19 22.2 are available in the Loeb edition, and also as appendices to Webster and Dudley, op. cit. (note 15) and to Webster, op. cit. (note 15), 200–2, where a new translation by Mary Beard and Neil Wright is produced. Nowhere, however, is a full translation of Dio produced in the text of a paper or book attempting a reconstruction of the expedition's course. Criticisms of Dio's detailed chronology made by Barrett, , Britannia xi (1980), 31–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar , do not invalidate Dio's account in matters of general sequence of events, direction of movement, and places and peoples mentioned.

31 Cassius Dio, lxii, 1.1–12.6.

32 Cassius Dio, lxvi, 20, 1–3.

33 Guest, Origines Cehicae ii, 399.

34 G.B. Airy, Athenaeum. June 28, 1860 (reprinted, 1865).

35 F.C.J. Spurrell, in a paper delivered to the Archaeological Institute in Nov. 1888.

36 Hübner, Das Römische Heer, 527–9; Hübner, , Römische Heerschaft in Westeuropa (Berlin, 1890), 16ffGoogle Scholar ; Hermes xvi (1881), 513ff; PWRE HL 868ff sv. ‘Britannien’.

37 Haverfield, F., Roman Occupation of Britain (1924), 102.Google Scholar

38 Henderson, B.W., The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero (1903), 200–1Google Scholar ; Furneaux, The Annals of Tacitus ii. 134–6; Haverfield, F., Roman Occupation of Britain (1924), 101–3Google Scholar ; Henderson, B.W., EHR, Jan. 1903, 6.Google Scholar

39 Collingwood, R.G. and Myres, J.N.L., Roman Britain and the English Settlements (1937), 79ff.Google Scholar

40 Teuber, G., ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der Eroberung Britanniens durch die Römer’, Breslauer Studien zur Geschichte iii (1909).Google Scholar

41 F. Haverfield, Roman Occupation…, 101; R.G. Collingwood, (1934), 19; Richmond, I.A., Roman Britain (1963), 20.Google Scholar The view was modified in Collingwood and Myres, op. cit. (note 39), 79–80; Collingwood, R.G., CAH X (1934). 797–8.Google Scholar

42 Burn, A.R., History xxxix (June, 1953), 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Dudley and Webster, op. cit. (note 15), 67; Frere, S.S., Britannia (1967), 64.Google Scholar

44 Webster, op. cit. (note 15 (1980)), 98–9; Todd, M., Roman Britain … (1981), 69Google Scholar ; Wacher, J., Roman Britain (1978), 29Google Scholar ; Salway, P., Roman Britain (1981), 83–4.Google Scholar

45 Bushe-Fox, J.P., Excavations at the Roman Fort at Richborough, Third Report, (1932), 10–13Google Scholar ; Excavations at the Roman Fort at Richborough, Fourth Report (1949), 3–5; 11–36.

46 Richmond, op. cit. (note 41), 20; Frere, S.S., Britannia (1967), 62Google Scholar ; (1978), 79–81. Wacher, op. cit. (note 44), 29; idem. The Coming of Rome (1980), 53.

47 Carson, R.A.G., Num. Chron. (1957), 17–22.Google Scholar

48 Webster, op. cit. (note 15 (1980)), 100.

49 Frere, S.S., Britannia (1967), 14Google Scholar ; (1978), 80–1.

50 Lucan, vi, 67; Juvenal, iv, 141 ‘Rutupinaque litora, Rutupinove edita fundo ostrea’. These show the importance of Richborough by the time of Nero and Trajan. In the fourth century Ammianus Marcellinus described Rutupiae as ‘ex adverso sitae to Bononia’ (xx.1) and a ‘slatto tranquilla’ (xxvii.8).

51 For Fingringhoe Wick. Fishbourne and Hamworthy, see Frere, S.S., Britannia (1978), 81ffGoogle Scholar ; Dudley and Webster, op. cit. (note 15), 103–4 and 112; Webster, op. cit. (note 15 (1980)), 140–2.

52 Stevens, C.E. reported by Hawkes, C.F.C. in Clifford, E.M., Bagendon, A Belgic Oppidum (1961), 65.Google Scholar An interpretation of Eutropius, Breviarium vii, 13, treated with some scepticism by Barrett, A., Britannia x (1979), 234.Google Scholar

53 Mommsen, T., The Provinces of the Roman Empire. The European Provinces (ed. Broughton, T.R.S., Chicago, 1968), 185Google Scholar n.8. But Hawkes in Clifford, op. cit. (note 52), and Frere, , Britannia (1967), 69Google Scholar , accept the emendation, and it seems reasonable to do so.

54 Wacher, op. cit. (note 44), 29; op. cit. (note 46), 53; Webster, op. cit. (note 15 (1980)), 95. Todd sees the whole invasion taking place in E. Kent, notably at Richborough and Reculver, Todd, op. cit. (note 44), 68.

55 Salway, op. cit. (note 44), 82ff.

56 Strabo. Geog. iv, 5, 2.

57 Suetonius, Claudius, 17. The fact was later celebrated by an arch of Claudius at Boulogne.

58 Caesar, Bell. Gall., iv, 29; v. 10; Hawkes, C.F.C., Proc. Brit. Acad. lxiii (1977), 125–92.Google Scholar Hawkes gives a map of Thanet and the Wantsum Channel. He thinks that Caesar's second landing was on it near the Worth Temple site.

59 For the easternmost three of these harbours, just to the West of Selsey Bill, see Cunliffe, B., Fishbourne — A Roman Palace and its Garden (1971), 19Google Scholar , fig. 1.

60 Ptolemy, Geographia ii, 3, 3; ii, 3, 14. In his edition of Ptolemy C. Mueller places Megas Limen near Poole and Wareham, in this following Horsley.

61 Dudley and Webster, op. cit. (note 15), 103 and App. v, 192–3.

62 idem.

63 Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 59), 24–31.

64 Webster, op. cit. (note 15 (1980)), 140–2.

65 ibid., 122.

66 Eumenius, , Panegyric to Constantius, Panegyrici Latini, viii (v) 16.2Google Scholar ; Eichholz, D.E., JRS xliii (1953), 41–6Google Scholar ; Shiel, N., The Episode of Carausius and Allectus BAR 40 (1977), 10–13.Google Scholar It should be noted that William of Normandy's invasion fleet, taking some 8,000 men in 1066, sailed from the mouth of the river Dives, proceeded along the coast to the Somme and crossed thence to Pevensey, before marching to Hastings. William did not use the narrowest part of the Channel, but probably made directly for Harold's own estates in Sussex, while he was absent.

67 Eumenius, op. cit. (note 66), 14.

68 Amm. Marc., Res Gestae, xx, 1; xxvii, 8.

69 The area enclosed at Richborough within the defensive line of ditches is at present about ten acres. They have been traced for a length of some 750 yards with a turn towards the river Stour at the southern end. This area would hold no more than about 2,500 men, Dudley and Webster, op. cit. (note 15), 60–2.

70 Wacher, op. cit. (note 44), 29; Dudley and Webster, op. cit. (note 15), 62. Cunliffe came to the conclusion that the double ditches and the well-built gate indicate that the camp was intended to be ‘semi-permanent’, Cunliffe, B., Fifth Report on the excavations at the Roman Fort at Richborough (1968), 232–4.Google Scholar

71 Lucan, Pharsalia, vi, 67; Juvenal, Satires, iv, 141.

72 Frere, S.S., Britannia, (1967), 118.Google Scholar

73 For the duration of Cogidubnus' client kingdom — ‘usque ad nostrani memoriam’ see Barrett, A., Britannia x (1979), 227ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74 Eichholz, , JRS xliii (1953), 41ffGoogle Scholar ; N. Shiel, op. cit. (note 66), ioff.

75 Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 16), 17ff; 21ff.

76 Allen, D.F., Archaeologia xc (1944), 36Google Scholar ; Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 16), 16–19; Salway, op. cit. (note 44), 82–7.

77 Clifford, op. cit. (note 52), 43–67; Wacher, J., The Towns of Roman Britain (1974), 289–94Google Scholar ; Boon, op. cit. (note 29), 42–3; Branigan, K. and Fowler, P., Roman West Country (1976), 20Google Scholar ; Webster, op. cit. (note 15 (1980)), 145; Wacher, J. and McWhirr, A., Early Roman Occupation at Cirencester (1982), 57, 64–5.Google Scholar

78 C.F.C. Hawkes in Clifford, op. cit. (note 52), 65; Webster, op. cit. (note 15 (1980)), 98. For the road linking Cirencester back with the area of Silchester and Winchester see Salway, op. cit. (note 44), 96–7; Margary, I.D., Roman Roads in Britain (1967), 146ffGoogle Scholar ; Wacher and McWhirr, op. cit. (note 77), 18, fig. 1; 66.

79 Hassall, M.W.C., Britannia i (1970), 131–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80 Ordnance Survey Map of Roman Britain … (ed. 4, 1975), 15; Rivet, A.L.F. and Smith, C., The Place-Names of Roman Britain (1979), 136, 476–7.Google Scholar

81 VCH Sussex III, 38–9 (S.E. Winbolt); Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 16), 69–71; Sussex, Environment, Landscape and Society, The Geography Editorial Committee, University of Sussex (Alan Sutton, 1983), 74. Summer flooding was bad around Pulborough down to the 1960s, and has continued even since a public enquiry about inadequate flood defences was held in 1978. The Arun has much the largest catchment area of the Sussex rivers; hence it is not surprising that it is the only one whose ancient name is known, Trisantona.

82 For Pontibus/Pontes, see Rivet, A.L.F., Britannia i (1970), 77Google Scholar (Pontes is on Route IX). Recent excavations in the small Roman township at Staines have been briefly reported in Britannia vii (1976), 374; viii (1977), 409; ix (1978), 468. This bridge across the Thames was very important as linking Camulodunum with Calleva and Venta, thus the main Belgie oppida in S. Britain.

83 Foi Ad Pontem at Thorpe, Nottingham, Rivet and Smith, op. cit. (note 80), 165, 241. For Drobem and Pontes on the Danube, Tudor, D., ‘Le port romain de Drobeta’, Acta of the Eleventh International Congress of Classical Archaeology (1978), 288–9.Google Scholar The plural in the British case has been supposed to mean that the first bridge was a military pontoon, Frere, Britannia, 65. There are also pontes longi (‘causeways’ and ‘timber ways’ over marshes), as near Boulogne, Pontes, Ant. Itin. 363.1. Todd thinks it was a military bridge thrown across by the troops, Todd, op. cit. (note 44), 71; Webster thinks it may have been a pre-existing native bridge, op. cit. (note 15 (1980)), 102.1 would adhere to this latter view, but suppose that the site was further upstream than is usually thought to be the case, at Staines (Pontes). It is also possible that a bridge and pontes longi over marshy ground were combined.

84 For this interpretation of Plautius' call to Claudius see Todd, op. cit. (note 44), 70–1; Webster, op. cit. (note 15 (1980)), 103. But holding closer to Cassius Dio's statement is Salway, op. cit. (note 44), 85.

85 Hind, , Greece and Rome xxi, (1974), 68–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Barrett, A., Britannia xi (1980), 32–3.Google Scholar

86 Salway produces a solution which is half-way towards the one proposed here, in that he thinks that Vespasian may have been transferred to the West Country to join a legion which had landed there, at one of the initial landing beach-heads, op. cit. (note 44), 92. This article was written before I saw J. Peddie, Invasion — The Roman Conquest of Britain (1987). However, Peddie reproduces the by now traditional view, but introduces a number of errors, and tops up with speculation based on modern logistics.