Ancient and Archaeology聽 permalink
Agricola's Legions
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 3rd December 2010
Two questions for all you Roman experts. When Agricola marched into Northern Britain in around 80AD which legions did he have with him? Tacitus mentions the Ninth being attacked in their camp and I had always assumed (althugh I don't know why) that the other was the Twentieth,probably because that was Agricola's old legion from the his days as a legate.
However, I am reading Alistair Moffat's "The Faded Map" and he mentions the Second as well. Now, I know all three legions were in Britain at the time but I imagined that one would have been left a bit further south to keep the recently conquered Silures and Brigantes under contriol.
Does anyone have any information on the makeup of the invasion force?
Secondly, regarding the Second Legion. I have seen this variously recorded as "Augusta" and "Adiutrix". Was this the same legion with a changeof name or was Second Augusta withdrawn and replaced by Second Adiutrix at some point? -
Message 2
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 3rd December 2010
Hi TonyG
Tacitus is our source for Agricola so for the general's dispositions you have only this historian, archaeology, and intelligent speculation on which to base your conclusions. I believe your assumptions are quite correct. Peter Salway in his 'Roman Britain' suggests that Legio XX Valeria Victrix formed the core of a western 'battle group' through Carlisle and Legio IX Hispana an eastern, advancing through Corbridge. Both legions would be accompanied by at least an equal number of auxiliaries and there may have been vexillations from other legions.
Legio II Adiutrix and Legio II Augusta were two separate legions. Legio II Augusta was part of Claudius's invasion force at which time it was commanded by the future emperor, Vespasian. For many years its base was at Caerleon on Usk. Legio XIIII Gemina Martia was stationed in Britain by the 60s and it was this legion that was replaced by Legio II Adiutrix, arriving (it is believed) with Petillius Cerealis in 71. This legion was described as recens conscriptis by Tacitus writing of 69. It garrisoned Lincoln, then founded Chester and garrisoned it in the 70s-80s. Then it was withdrawn to Dacia either in vexillations or as a unit (89). There is tombstone evidence of service in Pannonia. The legion was replaced at Chester by Legio XX Valeria Victrix.
TP -
Message 3
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 3rd December 2010
Thanks TP.
Your interpretation of the northern expedition matches my own thoughts. I suspect Moffat is reading too much into Tacitus' comment that Agricola split his army into three divisions at one point and he has assumed that this reflected three legions, which of course, was not necessarily the case as one division could easily have comprised only auxiliaries, or one of the legions could have been split into two for operatonal reasons.
WhatI am not clear on is when II Augusta left Britain. XIV Gemina was, I think, recalled during AD 69 the Year of the Four Emperors. and my understanding is that Britain had only three legions thereafter. Until Hadrian's reign these were IX Hispana, XX Valeria Victrix and either II Augusta or II Adiutrix. I know that legions often had the same number but different names so I was fairly sure that II Augusta and II Adiutriox were different legions - thanks for confirming that - but I have not been able to find any mention of when Augusta left and Adiiutrix arrived. Perhaps it was just after Vespasian took control as you suggest// -
Message 4
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 3rd December 2010
PS, I have just checked Wikipedia which says that II Adiutrix was raised by Vespian and after a brief spell in Germany did indeed accompany Cerialis to Britain. As for II Augusta, it says that this legion remained in Britain after its arrival in 43. If that is correct, there were four legions in Britain and two of them were "Second" legions.
-
Message 5
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 3rd December 2010
Hi Tony
I think this is right although Wkipedia does occasionally get some things wrong! In fact locating & dating Roman legions in Britain can be more difficult than appears at first sight. In AD 43 four legions took part in the invasion of Britain. The invasion is recorded by Dio Cassius but he does not name the legions involved. Archaeology suggests that the 4 were: II Augusta, XX Valeria Victrix, VIIII Hispana, and XIV Gemina Martia.
Legio II Augusta was certainly part of the original invasion force. Legio XX Valeria was attested by 60 and it presumably earned the title 'Victrix' in the Boudican rebellion or perhaps after Mons Graupius. Legio VIII Hispana does not appear to have acquired an additional title at this time so perhaps its service record in the two campaigns was blotted by its well known failures. The fourth legion in Britain was also present by 60 (and perhaps earlier) namely legio XIV Gemina. Its additional title 'Martia' was probably the result of its victory against Boudica.
Famously legio VI Victrix eventually replaced legio VIIII Hispana at York. Other legions feature on tombstone inscriptions. Legio VIII Augusta is recorded on a tombstone at Brougham, Cumbria. It is presumed that a vexillation of legio XXII Primagenia was involved with the creation of Hadrian's wall and the Antonine wall. It is understandable that massive construction projects like these would pull in additional specialists.
The really amazing thing is the size of the Army in Britain. Some 60,000 men (about 10% of the total) has been estimated to have been placed in this rather obscure province.
TP -
Message 6
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 4th December 2010
I think the explanation is that Britannia was a frontier province, with an ever-present external threat, similar to the situation along the Rhine, where 8 legions were deployed. In Britain they had to repel invaders from North of Hadrian's Wall, also from the sea, east and west.
-
Message 7
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 5th December 2010
Hi fascinating
There were periods of time when what you say must have been true. I think it was Tacitus, writing of the age of Tiberius, who placed 8 legions along the Rhine frontier. Compared to this the 4 legions placed in Britain seems appropriate since both areas had been subject to external threat.
By the principiate of Trajan however there were only 4 Rhine legions as forces were switched to the Danube from the Rhine, and from Spain. As you appreciate Britain had lost only a single legion by this time. As far as we can tell 3 legions remained in Britain for the rest of the Roman period, although vexillations may have been dispatched for Continental service.
One might argue, I assume you would argue, that these military dispositions reflected a perception of threat. I just wonder if after the pacification of Wales, and the construction of the two Walls, the provision of heavy infantry on this scale was really necessary. I think I would have placed more forces in Lower Germany able to intervene in Britain or Germany but there may have been other considerations of which we are now ignorant.
TP -
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 6th December 2010
One of these considerations in post-100 A.D. era might had been the growing menace in the eastern and north eastern fronts. Germanic tribes such as the Eruli pressed by the eastward invaders north-Iranian/Caucasian Alans & Sarmatians were already pressing in the low Danube while the most important risk came always from the east, the Parthian Empire whose armies the Romans never managed to beat decisevely (their victory/defeat ratio was 40/60 or less...) and they were constantly under threat. Given these threats, the British theater became gradually less relevant and the same went for the northwestern fronts.
-
Message 9
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 6th December 2010
Hi Nik
Obviously there is a a great deal in what you say, but what surprises me is that the forces maintained in Britain were as large as they appear to be in the 3rd and the first half of the 4th century. There are a number of possibilities.
One is that Britain was a more dangerous place than would at first appear; I admit that personally I see this period as a long, slow, sunset prior to Anglo-Saxon re-vitalisation. A second is that although the military bases were in Britain the majority of troops were in fact switched to the Continental theatre. A variant of this idea is that the units in Britain retained their names and battle honours but the military developments were in the direction of mobile equestrian field armies and in this respect Britain was a quiet backwater.
As a historian of Greece it is perfectly understandable that you stress the very considerable threat from the east, but remember that what precipitated the loss of Britain and northern Gaul was a barbarian Rhine crossing. This the British army, crossing to Gaul, very nearly (but not quite) controlled.
Kind regards
TP -
Message 10
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 6th December 2010
TP, all the information we have seems to add up to Britannia being subject to very real threat to barbarian attack. Hadrian had to build a big wall. Emperor Severus himself had to come and try to sort out the chaos at the wall. The forts of the Saxon Shore had to be built in the 3rd century - why was it called the Saxon Shore? With loss of armed strength in the 3rd century, the situation became desperate after 367 when the massive barbarian conspiracy occured.
-
Message 11
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 6th December 2010
Hi fascinating
I would agree that if your appraisal of these individual elements is correct, and if it is also valid to link these elements together, you can make a very good case for Britain being a very turbulent place indeed during the Roman period. In fact you could have enhanced your case with the activities of Constantius prior to his death in York, or the winter visit of Constans in 343. But as you are aware we are talking about an almost 400 year long period of history and the functions that Roman institutions had in the 2nd century might have been very different from those that they had in the 4th. Moreover it is possible to interpret each of your elements individually in a way which looks far less sinister.
As we have discussed very few scholars now see Hadrian's Wall as a purely defensive structure, although undeniably it is a massive statement of Roman power and prestige. The motivation for Severus's expedition to Caledonia is far from clear. The late Governor of the British province, Clodius Albinus, had fought a civil war with the emperor so there may well have been 'unfinished business' in the Province. Herodian records that barbarians 'were over-running the country'. But one can see this statement as a convention rather than a factual account of the situation of Britannia as a whole, and in any case he also records Severus's wish to get his sons out of Rome. Chaos there may have been at the Wall but the inscription at Risingham specifically states that that the gates and walls that Severus restored had collapsed 'due to age'.
The eastern coastal shore fort system is certainly a puzzle but it is quite possible to see the later forts at least, like Pevensey and Porchester, as being constructed by Carausius as defences against Roman armies, not barbarian hordes. In any case their function in the 4th C is as likely to have been in the collection and transport of goods, such as the wheat for Julian's army. The name 'Saxon Shore' appears only once in a Roman document; this is in the Notitia Dignitatum which in the form we have it probably post-dates the Roman period in Britain. Presumably the east coast was favoured by retired Saxon Roman soldiers to settle down on their pensions. I would be happy to have a bungalow at Yarmouth myself.
The Barbarian Conspiracy of AD 367 is a problem and I wouldn't argue that no trouble of any sort occurred. But our main source, Ammianus Marcellinus, was writing in the reign of general Theodosius's son and I don't suppose promoting the activities of the emperor's father did him any harm. Herodian, who also describes general Theodosius's activities, says that he 'drenched Orkney with Saxon blood'. Well, Herodian made up in patriotism what he lacked in geography!
TP -
Message 12
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 6th December 2010
Ammianus Marcellinus, was writing in the reign of general Theodosius's son and I don't suppose promoting the activities of the emperor's father did him any harm. Herodian, who also describes general Theodosius's activities, says that he 'drenched Orkney with Saxon blood'. Well, Herodian made up in patriotism what he lacked in geography! 聽
TP
Why do you rule it out?
Claudian
"The Orcades ran red with Saxon slaughter; Thule was warm with the blood of Picts; ice-bound Hibernia wept for the heaps of slain Scots."
-
Message 13
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 7th December 2010
Hi Haestan
You can't, as they say, be serious! Do we agree as to what the Romans understood by the Orcades, and by Thule and where, geographically they placed the Picts? There doesn't seem much doubt that the Orcades were Orkney and this is confirmed by maps based on Ptolemy's Geography. Such maps also suggest that Thule is Shetland. Although Thule has also been various placed in Iceland and Norway the link with Shetland is inevitable were your quotation from Claudian to be even faintly believable.
Accounts of Rome鈥檚 interactions with barbarians were written for domestic consumption; emperors being provided with 鈥榳orthwhile enemies鈥, to keep gloss on their laurels. Although Orkney and Thule are mentioned by Roman writers no circumstantial detail is provided, for example the dramatic sea coast broch towers, that would suggest their Iron Age societies were genuinely familiar. The late historian Eutropius even claimed that after his initial invasion Claudius 鈥榮ubdued Orkney鈥. This seems highly improbable in a formal sense, but has been associated with an early amphora fragment from Gurness broch which suggests that some form of contact took place. Famously in AD 297 a panegyric on Constantius Chlorus employed the word 鈥楶icts鈥 for the first time. A later panegyric on Constantine mentioned 鈥榯he forests and marshes of the Caledonians and other Picts鈥 also 鈥業reland and furthest Thule鈥.
Tacitus records Agricola's use of a fleet to investigate harbours and it would be astonishing if Septimius Severus's invasion was not supported and supplied by shipping. Roman artefacts of the 2nd and 3rd centuries are commonly found on high status sites in Atlantic Scotland which fits nicely with this. As you say Claudian, a late author, described 鈥極rkney crammed with Saxon dead and Thule drenched with the blood of Picts鈥 when illustrating the achievements of the elder Theodosius. But Claudian was a late 4th century poet and the quotation you provide, written in a panegyric on the fourth consulship of Honorius, may not have been intended to be an accurate account of the activities of the emperor's grandfather; Britain is poetically 'wild', Spain has 'rivers of gold' etc. Even allowing that 'Pict' was used indiscriminately for Rome's enemies in Britain and 'Saxon' for those outside the German provinces could, and would, a late 4th century general have placed a fleet on the Northern Isles and would he have found Saxons there had he done so? My answer is 'no' to the first and 'only if he brought them personally' to the second. Could you really envisage otherwise?There are no archaeological finds that would support Claudian's interpretation.
Interestingly some centuries later there is slight archaeological evidence of Anglo-Saxon contact with Thule. The recent excavations at Old Scatness broch, Shetland produced a coin of Athelstan and a small fragment of mid-Saxon impressed pottery.
Best wishes
TP -
Message 14
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 7th December 2010
TP
Claudian was court poet to Honorius and Stilicho, Britain had been a Roman province for almost 400 years by then.
We know from archaeology that the Romans were trading with the Baltic and arming the Scandinavians on an industrial scale.
Orkney would have been a key strategic point for this trade from Britain, just as it was in the Viking era.
The Great Conspiracy places Saxones north of Hadrian's Wall in the 4th century, the early Anglo-Saxons were sea people just like the Vikings.
The archaeological evidence of Orkney is sparse for this period, is it not? Pictish archeologhy is some 200 years later. -
Message 15
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 7th December 2010
Hi Haesten
As far as I know you are correct about Claudian's biography. There are several stratified sites in Orkney and Shetland that include the Late Iron Age (AD 300 onwards). I think that if there were a significant Roman Iron Age or Saxon Iron Age period in the Northern Isles there would be archaeological evidence of it. I think we can be quite confident that this region contains no historically defined break in the settlement sequence from the Early Iron Age until the Norse period. What you call 'Pictish archaeology' depends very much on ones perception of what a Pict was!
I think your use of 'Scandinavians' is an anachronism but massive numbers of Roman artefacts have certainly been found in Denmark. Their number, variety, and quality far exceeds those from Atlantic Scotland, indeed the western Baltic region is the richest area source of Roman goods and weapons in northern Europe. Votive deposition in bogs is recognised in Denmark and there are magnificent archaeological assemblages from Roman Iron Age burials. The tradition of imported exotic objects as grave goods was ancient; Etruscan bronze artefacts of the 5th - 3rd centuries BC have also been excavated. Over the whole of northern Europe Hedeager posited a 200km buffer zone between the Empire and Free Germany where ordinary goods circulated much as they did within the Empire; north of the buffer zone large quantities of luxury items were found circulating among elites.
Commercial trade between the Roman Empire and Denmark, using rivers or marine transportation from Lower Germany, is perfectly feasible. But in no way would Orkney be a key strategic point for such trade. In the Viking era the importance of Orkney was as a stopping-off point in a trade route connecting Iceland, Ireland or the Western Isles with western Norway. Roman artefacts are of course found in Norway, but not on 'an industrial scale'.
The so-called 'Barbarica Conspiratio' does pose problems I must admit. As I said in an earlier post I can hardly claim it never occurred at all, and in fact Ammianus Marcellinus recorded trouble near the frontier a few years earlier at the time of Julian. But I think it is important not to go further than the textual evidence allows. Ammianus describes the event as 'a concerted attack by the barbarians'. He says the 'Picts...together with the warlike people of the Attacotti and the Scots, were roving at large and causing great devastation'. Finally he adds 'the Franks and the Saxons were raiding those parts of Gaul nearest to them by land and sea'. This account is evidently only a poetic recital of all Rome's contemporary enemies and nowhere does Ammianus place Saxons north of Hadrian's Wall, or indeed in Britain at all.
Finally I can't accept that in the 4th century, the 'early Anglo-Saxons were sea people just like the Vikings'. The Vikings were among the most advanced boat builders and navigators of all time. They ranged the North Atlantic, discovered America and settled Iceland. The Saxons are known as pirates in those parts of the Channel and North Sea close to their territory and clearly had enough of a maritime capability to move migrants (in what numbers we might debate elsewhere) to eastern Britain, but that is all. There is really nothing in the ASC, or elsewhere, that marks the Saxons as an international naval power.
TP -
Message 16
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 7th December 2010
There is really nothing in the ASC, or elsewhere, that marks the Saxons as an international naval power.聽
Sutton Hoo?
Saxon scout ships described by Vegetius?
Btw, 'sea people' does not indicate 'international naval power'.
I would have thought the Irish Sea trade with the Baltic would have been just as lucrative in the Roman period, as in the later Viking period, if not more so.
Saxone fedorati stationed on Orkney would not show in the archaeological record, anymore than they do in the regular Roman army.
In this senario they would very likely be party to the Great Conspiracy. -
Message 17
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 7th December 2010
Hi Haestan
I have no problem with Saxon scout ships.
Was the great ship in mound 1 at Sutton Hoo Anglo-Saxon or Swedish I wonder? The numbers are too few and too late to influence the argument I think.
You will have to be more forth-coming about what you consider the Irish Sea Trade with the Baltic to have been in the Roman period, and what the evidence that it existed at all might be. There is good ceramic evidence of trade between the Mediterranean and Gaul with the Irish Sea in the post-Roman Iron Age.
Saxon recruits in the Roman army would have used Roman equipment certainly and thus be archaeologically invisible, as Saxons, although I should have expected foederati to have their own officers and their traditional arms. Since there is neither archaeological evidence for the Roman nor Saxon military in the Northern Isles I'm not sure that this affects the argument.
What purpose would there be in stationing conspiratorial Roman troops of whatever origin in late 4th C Orkney? Honestly I don't think that cock will fight.
TP -
Message 18
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 7th December 2010
TP
There are two large ship burials at Sutton Hoo and an earlier one near Snape, then there is the 5th century ship burial at Feddersen Wierde, with Roman military connection. -
Message 19
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010
Hi Hasten
It looks as if everyone else on this thread has lost the will to live. Perhaps we should postpone further discussion since our views are clear enough, even if irreconcilable?
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 20
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010
What purpose would there be in stationing conspiratorial Roman troops of whatever origin in late 4th C Orkney? Honestly I don't think that cock will fight.聽
You would not want Orkney in the hands of hostile pirates, if you are trading with the Baltic from the Irish Sea. -
Message 21
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010
Hi Haesten
Nor you would but:
Firstly, is there evidence of trade between the Baltic and Irish sea at that period?
Secondly, is there any evidence that hostile pirates threatened that trade?
Thirdly, is there historical or archaeological evidence that places Romans or Saxons on Orkney at that, or any period, to place a restraint on those pirates?
There comes a time when creative speculation has to be tested against actual evidence; sorry!
TP -
Message 22
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010
TP
Absence of archaeological evidence is not evidence of absence.
Orkney is mentioned by a number of Roman sources, so must have had some strategic importance.
Even if you only wanted to stop Saxone pirates getting into the Irish Sea, Orkney would be the place to base your defence force.
Scapa Flow was the base of Grand Fleet against later German pirates. -
Message 23
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010
Hi Haestan
Well I won't argue about the Grand (or 主播大秀) Fleet base. In the right conditions Scapa Flow can be a breath-taking sight even today. Have you been to Orkney?
We have to be very careful when quoting 'Absence of archaeological evidence is not evidence of absence', since the same principal would enable me to spice up British prehistory by placing an army of Scythians on the Isle of Wight in the Bronze Age. Admittedly there is not one particle of evidence that the Scythians landed their horses at Alum Bay, but then absence of evidence.....
I don't know that everywhere mentioned by Roman writers was necessarily of strategic importance; imperial panegyrics contain references to Ireland and to the Isles of the Blessed for that matter. I think anywhere remote and dangerous would do.
If I was a Saxon pirate wanting to reach the Irish sea I don't know that I would go via Orkney although I may be influenced by the experience of a hideously rough crossing to Kirkwall from Aberdeen. From Lower Germany to Cornwall is a lot quicker and has the advantage that the voyage would pick up a known trading route from Brittany to Cornwall and up the west coast to Wales & Ireland.
May I ask again: is there any actual evidence whatever that Romans or Saxons were stationed on Orkney. A yes/no answer please, or I shall send my Scythians after you!
TP -
Message 24
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010
TP
There's Claudian of course, who was employed by Stilicho, a Vandal.
German pirates trying to make the Irish Sea via Cornwall, would have to run the gauntlet of the Saxon Shore and the Classis Britannica.
No General worth his salt would leave the back door open, via Orkney / Pentland Firth. -
Message 25
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010
Hi Haesten
Well, yes, there is Claudian but this whole discussion was undertaken to try to establish whether Claudian was making a literal statement or, as I would suppose, indulging in poetic licence.
Obviously I don't see the Saxon Shore system as primarily defensive so, in my view, there wasn't much of a defensive gauntlet to run. Incidentally epigraphically, the Classis Britannica disappears in the reign of Philip the Arab (244-9). Obviously Carausius was famous for using a fleet but its name and bases are uncertain. At any rate by AD 300 the coastal fort network was established and must have been supported with a Roman fleet, whatever it was called.
But no I can't see Saxon ships heading off to Orkney en route to the Irish Sea but we have probably promoted our contrasting views sufficiently for any other readers, assuming there are such, to make up their minds on this point.
TP -
Message 26
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010
TP
There's almost certainly a cohors of the fleet in Cumbria, circa 4/5th century.
Cohors Primae Aeliae Classicae
-
Message 27
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010
Well, I've been reading it for one and it's prompted me to do a bit of raking about. I came up with this book, which is new to me, but it's in the university library and, when the snow subsides, I'll get it out and have a look at it.
The reviews however seem to be a bit sceptical, here's an extract from one, it's on Muse if you can access it.
Every so often a book comes along which invites us to challenge long-held beliefs or assumptions. This particular book aims to provide a new interpretation of the history of Britain in the fourth and fifth centuries, i.e. that there was Anglo-Saxon settlement in Orkney and Shetland from the fourth century onwards. Such an attempt is to be welcomed. We all need our thinking to be challenged. However, successful challenges need to be backed up by comprehensive and detailed scholarship. It is here that this book fails to meet its aim. It is best regarded as a plea for new thinking, rather than a finished and polished interpretation.
The author's enthusiasm for his subject is evident. Unfortunately, the study of late antiquity and the early medieval period demands an unusual degree of familiarity with a wide range of evidence, covering documents, archaeology, linguistics, art history etc. Very few scholars can accomplish this, and even experts in one of these areas will often make inappropriate use of other areas they are less familiar with. The author's approach is to use evidence from these areas, but, unfortunately, there are various errors of fact or of approach which render his arguments suspect. Some of his statements are plain wrong; e.g. that the Vandals were not a Germanic people. Others reflect long out-of-date ideas; e.g. that Edinburgh was founded by King Edwin. His idea that the Picts were a people of native origin conquered by Celts speaking Old Irish reflects a poor understanding of the complexities of history and linguistics in the first millennium A.D. 聽
As far as the Romans are concerned, I've never heard any suggestion that there is any evidence to suggest much than contact, certainly neither settlement or military presence. Here's some of the latest information from Minehowe.
I still believe that Orkney and Shetland were mostly significant to the Romans in their capacity as 'Ultima Thule', the edge of the known world and, as such, had to be projected as being under the Roman sandal to legitimise their claim to be conquerors of the world. -
Message 28
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010
TP, you make some interesting points in message 11, though I cannot say I agree. I only wish to restate that Hadrian's Wall was undoubtedly built as a defensive structure, as is proven by the fact that there were numerous forts on and around it, and manned by 15000 or more soldiers. People can speculate about secondary purposes to overawe or use as a customs barrier, but there is not a single shred of evidence for those ideas.
-
Message 29
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Wednesday, 8th December 2010
Pre migration Germanic tribes.
There was a big battle at Arhus (Baltic Jutland) circa 2/3 century, the defeated tribe had been armed with Roman weapons on an industrial scale.
A reasonable assumption would be, that the tribe that occupied and defended this part of Jutland were causing the Romans a problem.
They are not a frontier tribe, so another reasonable assumption would be pirate raids from the Baltic on Britain. -
Message 30
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Thursday, 9th December 2010
TP
Ammianus Marcellinus, barbarica conspiratio
Res Gestae, Book XXVI, chapter 4
"During this period [Valentinian had just chosen Valens as Augustus] practically the whole Roman world heard the trumpet-call of war, as savage peoples stirred themselves and raided the frontiers nearest to them. The Alamanni were ravaging Gaul and Raetia simultaneously; the Sarmatians and Quadi were devastating Pannonia; the Picts, Saxons, Scots [Irish] and Attacotti were bringing continual misery upon Britain; the Austoriani and other Moorish peoples were attacking Africa with more than usual violence; and predatory bands of Goths were plundering Thrace and Moesia."
Res Gestae, Book XXVII, chapter 8
"鈥 Valentinian was shocked to receive the serious news that a concerted attack by the barbarians had reduced the province of Britain to the verge of ruin. Nectaridus, the count of the coastal region, had been killed, and the general Fullofaudes surprised and cut off. The emperor sent Severus, count of the household troops鈥 Shortly afterwards Severus was recalled and Jovinus set out for the island, but sent an appeal for strong reinforcements鈥
It will suffice to say that at that time the Picts (the Dicaledones and the Verturiones), together with the warlike Attacotti and the Scots, were roving at large and causing great devastation. In addition the Franks and Saxons were losing no opportunity of raiding the parts of Gaul nearest to them by land and sea, plundering, burning, and putting to death their prisoners."
Original Latin here, IV, 5.
Ammianus certainly says the Saxone were involved in Britain during the revolt. -
Message 31
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 9th December 2010
Hi ferval,
It's really stimulating to have a new poster on this thread; I was rather afraid that us 'usual suspects' were about talked out. To really get a grip on post-Roman Iron Age Britain we would need to marshal evidence from history, archaeology, linguistics, place names and genetics. Sadly I don't think anyone could be the master (or indeed mistress) of all these disciplines simultaneously. As you can see my opinions are most profoundly influenced by archaeology, believing as I do that far too much weight is placed on the unsupported texts of ill-informed Roman writers and poets. I can hardly complain if others employ a diametrically opposite approach.
In many ways the history of the Northern Isles throws up the same issues as those in Britain as a whole. The language of Orkney and Shetland changed in the Norse period, and on this basis one Shetland historian posits the total extermination of their Iron Age Inhabitants and subsequent complete population replacement. In eastern England it is the Anglo-Saxons who were once perceived as genocidal migrants. In both places agriculture seems to continue uninterrupted during these episodes of battle, murder and sudden death. On the other hand if I am to convince others that in fact we are seeing the results of largely peaceable acculturation I would need to have a completely satisfying explanation for the language changes, and I am some way from doing this at present.
Thanks for the links. I have not come across Dr Graeme Davis before. If he lives in Sussex (that blessed plot) he can't be all bad, and his 'Harry Potter Quiz Book' and 'Paradise Lost in 999 Words' might well be worth considering as Christmas presents. In the complete review, you link to, the 'Claudius' mentioned is actually the poet Claudian of Haesten's posts. Mine Howe is an extraordinary place. The fact that Roman writers never tell us anything about the IA society which produced such monuments indicates to me that they were interested in the Northern Isles only as metaphors, as you suggest.
The paper on Roman finds at Mine Howe is excellent. A few years ago I did a project on Roman artefacts in Atlantic Scotland myself so I'm in a good position to appreciate it. You will know the work of Fraser Hunter in this area I am sure. Although far more Roman goods penetrated Scotland than was once believed, the situation is in no way comparable with Denmark and Germany. The real difficulty for me with a significant Roman presence on the Northern Isle is a total lack of evidence for Roman ideas. No Roman Gods, burials, inscriptions, or foods. If Saxons were there, as Saxons, then where are annular or long-short brooches, wrist clasps or bracteates?
No, I'm afraid that it does not look like a duck, and does not quack like a duck, then it isn't a duck.
TP -
Message 32
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 9th December 2010
Hi Haesten
Thanks for the long quotation. 'Involved in Britain' is one thing but, strictly speaking, Ammianus doesn't record that they were attacking Britain.
In the second paragraph he says that the Saxons & Franks were raiding the parts of Gaul nearest to them by land and sea. That does seem to be true and it is exactly what might be expected.
The first paragraph is a famous recital of all the enemies of the Roman world. The Saxons are in a list of those whose activities were bringing continual misery on Britain.
Combining the two two statements together suggests to me that the Saxon depredations in Gaul made the Channel unsafe for trade and transport and presumably put British littoral settlements at some risk.
TP -
Message 33
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Friday, 10th December 2010
Hi TP
There are a couple of points that I would debate with you here.
As you have said that there was a large amount of troops stationed in Britannia throughout the Roman period and it would seem that every time that the troops were reduced there were invasions or rebellions and troops had to be brought in.
The last of these was Stilicho being forced to bring in troops around AD397.
Sadly there is comparatively little information regarding the Roman Navy but suffice to say supplies and troops were moved between Britannia and Gaul on a regular basis.
Some of this movement was indeed vast and it would seem that to move a legion across the Channel was almost mundane for the Romans.
The navy was a key part of the Roman military, sailing all around Britain and as we have discussed in the past was used not only as a transport but also as a defensive weapon in its own right.
To ignore the Saxons or Picts or Scotti as being qualified sailors would fly in the face of the need of a defensive navy or naval installations or even the need for the Yorkshire signalling systems.
We know that there were many Irish in West Wales who would appear to at the least tolerated and perhaps encouraged and there would also appear to be a flourishing 鈥渟lave trade鈥 capturing people from Britannia.
Now although we know that there must have been many Roman ships or ships under Roman control sailing from Britannia, the amount that have actually been found is very small.
Therefore should we expect to find that many ships from the Saxons, Scotti or Picts have survived?
This lack of remains does not mean that the Saxon and Angles were not a naval force in their own right any more than the 鈥淚rish鈥 or indeed the Franks.
At what point do pirates become a naval power?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 34
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 11th December 2010
Hi TA
It's important not to exaggerate the extent of British 'invasions or rebellions'. Long periods of the 3rd & 4th centuries were historically quiet and it is really difficult to know to what extent Pictish incursions affected lowland Britain, or the political aspirations of imperial pretenders affected rural farming communities. The central government of the late Roman empire had two problems: ingress, sometimes invited ingress, by barbarians, and the regrettable propensity of powerful generals to try for the top job. It was difficult to manage these situations simultaneously although the creation of a mobile field army under the direct control of an Augustus or a Caesar was an important step. I think it is too simplistic to say that problems occurred in Britain on each occasion that the numbers of the garrison were reduced. If you wish we could analyse a particular episode in detail to test this hypothesis.
I think you must be quite correct in supposing that supplies and troops were regularly moved between Britain and Gaul throughout the Roman period, indeed the survival of Britain as a province depended on it. The degree to which the late Roman fleet was used as a 'weapon' rather than as 'transport' is difficult to answer. We have been discussing the dispositions of the elder Theodosius in the aftermath of the 'Barbarian Conspiracy'. It is very striking that confronted with ingress by the Picts, Scots and Attacotti he sails to the port of Richborough on the Kentish coast. It does look as if Theodosius was attempting to transport his troops across the Channel by the shortest possible route. You certainly get no hint of combined operations in Ammianus's account. Theodosius seemingly thought like a soldier.
We have exactly the same situation when discussing the Iron Age people of Britain and Europe outside the empire. Since no Roman roads were available to them sea transport must have been a great deal quicker and easier than overland movement. Clearly it would be absurd for me to claims that the Irish reached Wales, or the Picts & Saxons Britain, without shipping but I see none of these people, nor the Romans for that matter, as assertive blue water sailors in the Viking manner. This is revealed even by fishing. In one site, where the consumption of fish by a Pictish Iron Age community could be directly compared to that of later Norse inhabitants, it the Norse who are exploiting large oceanic species whereas the Picts are content with coastal varieties.
I don't think it is surprising that so few wooden ships have survived from the Roman and post-Roman Iron Age. The materials from which they were constructed were valuable and recyclable. None of the tribes practised boat burials, another hint perhaps that mastery of the sea was not seen as a metaphor for existence. However this may not be relevant since the lack of ship survival is not the reason I find it difficult to see the Picts and Saxons as naval powers. The Picts stride through the pages of late Roman historians looting, fighting and plundering. So where are the deposits in Scotland of late Roman loot? One of the few that exist, the silverware of the Traprain Law treasure, looks like an official payment not loot. Correspondingly the Anglo-Saxons must have arrived here by sea but aside from this is there anything in early Anglo-Saxon history that marks them as great sailors? Is there an iconography of ships? Are their legendary early Saxon sailors? Do Saxon grave goods or burial customs hint at the importance of sea-faring? Aside from Sutton Hoo there is none, and the closest parallels to those burials are found in Sweden.
I'm not sure at what stage pirates become a naval power but I'm fairly certain that neither Picts or Saxons made the grade!
Best wishes, TP -
Message 35
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Saturday, 11th December 2010
TP
This one is on the Alde, the next river north of the Deben (Sutton Hoo).
The archaeologists I've spoken to at Sutton Hoo, believe the people who had these boats owned land both sides of the North Sea. -
Message 36
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 11th December 2010
Hi Haesten
To know anything about international land ownership in the 6th or 7th century would be fascinating. Did they say where exactly outside England, and on what evidence this idea was based?
TP -
Message 37
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Saturday, 11th December 2010
TP
Not in any detail, but they were involved in the last dig there with Martin Carver, discovered the horse burial.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.