Romanisation of Britain

Alexander Brown 12A Ancient History Dr Barrie

Brisbane Grammar School

2013

The Roman acculturation of Britain is often considered relatively benevolent and non violent. However, to what extent is this true? Is there evidence that suggests a more tyrannical rule?

From the time that Julius Caesar first set foot upon its shore, right up until the expulsion of Roman magistrates from its cities, the Roman Empire brought about such a cultural transformation to the British Isles that a similar event is yet to repeat itself in history. Iron Age Britain, while not as archaic as many ancient sources describe it, was hugely influenced by the presence of Roman imperialism. The decadent and lavish Roman culture seduced the Britons. Dirt tracks were replaced with paved roads, tribal villages morphed into bustling cities and animal skin tunics were exchanged for togas. The Romans had brought civilisation to this barbaric island. However, with the invasion also came the opportunity for tyranny and cruelty. Imperial Romans granted vast loans to British aristocracy who were new to the financial market and suffered under high interest rates. The Emperor Nero greedily employed violence and aggression to rob British kings of their land. Although Roman colonisation contributed to the emergence Britain from the Iron Age through a relatively peaceful and magnanimous process of winning over local chiefs, this Roman benevolence only extended so far as was expedient for the Empire.

To fully understand the impact that the Roman Empire had upon Britain, one must first take a look at Britain during the Iron Age, prior to Roman invasion. Contrary to popular belief, ancient Britain is not nearly as primitive as many sources make it out to be. All primary source texts that describe Iron Age Britain are of Ancient Roman authorship, the most extensive being from Tacitus and Cassius Dio. The Romans considered themselves the leaders of the civilised world and believed they brought civilisation to other places (Weigel, 2011). As a result, the majority of the sources are critical of the somewhat primal nature of the British. Archaeological evidence, however, paints a different picture. Preceding Julius Caesars invasion in 55 BC, the people of the British Isles were of a tribal nature, each tribe having its own chief and constituency. Tribal life was typically agrarian. Most people were farmers who grew wheat and barley, and kept domesticated cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens and cats. There is also evidence of clothing, woodworking and, in particularly, metalworking. A document from the British Museum rejects the notion that the Romans began the urbanisation of the Britons and that they were already developing pro-cities before the invasion, sprawling agglomerations of industrial, religious and governmental activities (Various). Indeed, the prehistoric Maiden hill-fort is an example of an expansive Iron Age British town, or oppida, with a number of massive ramparts and defensive moat-like ditches. A prime example of the ancient Britons exquisite skill with metal crafting is the Great Torc of Snettisham (Image 1). Created sometime between 150 and 75 BC, the decorative neck-ring is made from over a kilogram of gold and silver. Eight 1.9mm wide threads of the metal were twisted into a band. Eight of these were made and then twisted into the final torc. The ends of the torc were capped with more elaborately crafted buds of metal. (Various) The elaborate nature of the torc sends two messages about preroman Britain. Firstly, the intricate metalwork indicates that the British were exceptionally advanced in this art, perhaps even exceeding the Romans. Secondly, it demonstrates that the British had time for and an appreciation of art. This is exclusively an aspect of a civilised population. When the troops of Julius Caesar first set foot upon British soil, they had come across a developing and dynamic society.

In its most basic form, the Romanisation process of Britain can be viewed as relatively passive. The invasion and subsequent conquering of Britain took three attempts by the Romans: the campaigns of Julius Caesar of 55 & 54 BC and the Claudian campaign of 42 AD. Julius Caesars Commentarii di Bello Gallico states his motive as retribution toward the British who had been aiding the enemy in almost all *their+ wars with the Gauls (Caesar: Commentarii di Bello Gallico, Book 4). In reality, it is more likely that he saw Britain as merely an opportunity for political gain, a chance to prove his worth over the other two members of the current triumvirate that ruled Rome, Pompey and Crassus (Salway, 1981, p. 24). His invasion was hindered, however, by a number of storms, which destroyed his fleet and prevented a full-scale attack on both occasions. (Schama, 2009, p. 29) Emperor Claudius was more successful. He too saw Britain as an opportunity for political gain: a chance to prove his worth to a Roman public sceptical of his capabilities. British historian and University Professor of History at Columbia University Simon Schama, tells us that 'Claudius succeeded where Julius Caesar failed: through a brilliantly synchronized campaign of concentrated military ruthlessness and shrewd political pragmatism. The Claudian administration did not focus solely on military conquest but also on the

acculturation of the British tribes into Roman ways. Schama goes on to tell of how the Romans offered to the British aristocracy, wealth and status if they laid down their weapons. A number of kings did so and were thus rewarded. Within Britain there arose two distinguishable zones: civil and military. Roman power in the Caledonian highlands was enforced largely with forts and military power and, as a result, was unable to be successfully Romanised (Laing & Laing, 1995, p. 72).The south, however, was much more receptive to the nuances of Roman life as is evidenced by the text of Tacitus Life of Gnaeus Julius Agricola: to accustom to rest and repose through the charms of luxury a population scattered and barbarous and therefore inclined to war, Agricola gave private encouragement and public aid to the building of temples, courts of justice and dwelling-houses, praising the energetic, and reproving the indolentHe likewise provided a liberal education for the sons of the chiefs, and showed such a preference for the natural powers of the Britons over the industry of the Gauls that they who lately disdained the tongue of Rome now coveted its eloquence. Hence too, a liking sprang up for our style of dress, and the toga became fashionable. Step by step they were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant banquet. TACITUS: Life of Gnaeus Julius Agricola, s. 21 This source is an accurate representation of the effort that the Romans went to in order to Romanise newly conquered provinces. It describes the methods of Romanisation employed by the Roman aristocracy, specifically their generosity towards the local British elite and how, through providing public aid to the building of temples, courts of justice and dwelling-houses *and+ praising the energetic, the British made it their ambition to become Roman. The success of the Romanisation is evident in the manner in which the Britons coveted the eloquence of Rome and began to wear the toga with pride. Tacitus is often considered to be one of the greatest Roman historians of all time and is known for his brief and unembellished writing style. This, combined with his access to official Senate archives, defines his works as scrupulously researched and trustworthy. He lived, however, under the ruthless rule of Emperor Domitian (reg. 81-96AD) and developed a dislike for all things Imperial, fawning over old republican values and politics of Rome. The private encouragement and public aid to the building of templesand dwelling -houses which the Romans relied upon heavily in order to attract the Britons into the empire can be seen in the Roman Baths at Bath, England (Image 2). The Roman Baths at Bath are the result of the Romans making use of natural hot springs. They were constructed around 44BC, just a year after Emperor Claudius invasion of 43BC. The baths consist of number of thermal spas, namely the Great Bath and the Sacred Shrine. They are a superb example of the Roman acculturation of the British through impressive architecture that was unfamiliar to the tribal British. The size, which is disproportionate to the size of the town, was meant to accommodate as many people as possible. Faced with these large and impressive buildings, the British could see what being a part of the Roman Empire could mean to them. However, Tacitus, in the final sentence of the above text displays his aversion to imperial rule and exposes the Roman conquest as being perhaps not entirely peaceful. Step by step they were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant banquet. All this in their ignorance they called civilisation, when it was but a part of their servitude. The final statement labels introduction of the British into Roman life as merely a part of their servitude. While it is improbable that the British were slaves as such (it is unlikely that they would have been so eager to be Romanised if they knew they would be subject to slavery), they were ignorant to the fact that they had been conquered and were now just another province of the almighty Roman Empire.

Although the initial invasion of Britain by the Romans was relatively benign, and pulled the British tribes out of the Iron Age with their characteristically civilised physical and political infrastructure, this benevolence did not extend to all corners of the new province and was almost certainly not upheld entirely after the death of Claudius. Schama even suggests that, from the very beginning, the manner in which the Romans bribed local rulers with rewards and wealth was a clever method of cultivating dissent between tribes and was never meant to be purely munificent (Schama, 2009, p. 31). Evidence of tyranny is prevalent in the

attitudes of Roman imperials toward the British. Consider the following quote from Dr Mike Ibeji, taken from a BBC website which provides an overview of Roman Britain: new provinces brought with them new markets and unscrupulous speculators eager to fleece the unwary. Vast loans were granted at ruinous rates of interest to the British aristocracy, by the likes of Seneca, the Emperor Nero's tutor and adviser. Dr Mike Ibeji: An Overview of Roman Britain Dr Ibeji is a renowned Roman military historian and producer of the television adaptation of Schamas A History of Britain. This secondary source provides one with an insight into the methods of loansharking that were evident even in ancient times, and that were put into practice in order to extort money from the nave Romans. (Ibeji, 2011) That such methods were adopted by Emperor Neros own advisor suggests that exploitation bloomed after the initial conquest. The influence of usury is further explored in Cassius Dios recount of the revolt of Boudicca in Historia Romana. He begins his recount with origins of the revolt. An excuse for the war was found in the confiscation of the sums of money that Claudius had given to the foremost Britons; for these sums, as Decianus Catus, the procurator of the island, maintained, were to be paid back. This was one reason for the uprising; another was found in the fact that Seneca, in the hope of receiving a good rate of interest, had lent to the islanders 40,000,000 sesterces that they did not want, and had afterwards called in this loan all at once and had resorted to severe measures in exacting it. Cassius Dio: Historia Romana, Book 62 Hailing from a wealthy family, Dio served much of his life as a senator, even serving as consul circa. 205AD. He was granted access to the Roman historical archives and was therefore able to make accurate judgements in regard to historical events. He is considered to imitate the Ancient Greek scholar Thucydides who was known for his fastidious attention to the truth and we can thus consider him a worthwhile source also. This text further illustrates the Romans alacrity in coercing money from the nave Britons. Additionally, it gives an insight into the Boudiccan revolt of 60AD. The King of the Iceni tribe had recently passed away and left in his will half of his kingdom to his daughters and the other portion to the Roman Empire. The Roman procurator in Britain, Decianus Catus, believed that Nero *would view+ a half-share of an estate as a personal snub, and moved to sequester the lot (Ibeji, 2011). An account of the incident is given by Tacitus in his Annals. He writes referring to the late king, stating that his dominions were ravaged by centurionshis wife, Boudicca, was disgraced with cruel stripes; her daughters were ravished*and+ the relations of the deceased king were reduced to slavery (Tacitus: The Annals, Chapter 31). Credibility of this source is enforced by Ronald Mellor, Professor of History at UCLA, who describes the text as Tacitus's crowning achievement and the pinnacle of Roman historical writing in his book Tacitus Annals (Mellor, 1994). Further evidence of this despotism is described in Dios Historia Romana where he recounts the words of Boudicca herself as she rallies her troops. "You have learned by actual experience how different freedom is from slavery. Hence, although some among you may previously, through ignorance of which was better, have been deceived by the alluring promises of the Romans, yet now that you have tried both, you have learned how great a mistake you made in preferring an imported despotism to your ancestral mode of life, and you have come to realize how much better is poverty with no master than wealth with slavery. For what treatment is there of the most shameful or grievous sort that we have not suffered ever since these men made their appearance in Britain? Have we not been robbed entirely of most of our possessionswhile for those that remain we pay taxes? Besides pasturing and tilling for themdo we not pay a yearly tribute for our very bodies?...Why is it that, though none of us has any money (how, indeed, could we, or where would we get it?), we are stripped and despoiled like a murderer's victims? And why should the Romans be expected to display moderation as time goes on, when they have behaved toward us in this fashion at the very outset? Cassius Dio, speaking as Boudicca, Historia Romana, Book 62

This source is perhaps the most critical in exposing the Roman treatment of the British. Although the text should not be interpreted wholeheartedly as the truth, as it is a form of propaganda, there is an obvious resentment toward the Romans and their culture. It speaks of the Britons being robbed of their belongings and forced to pay taxes for that which remained, implying further that the oppressive rule was present since the very beginning in 43 AD. This is an example of an impeccable source which highlights the surprisingly tyrannical nature of the invasion.

The Roman colonisation of Britain is often depicted as a primary example of successful Romanisation. With mesmerising architecture and promises of wealth, they enticed the tribal Britons into donning the toga. Conversely, other archaeological evidence suggests that British culture was not quite as archaic as the popular Roman historians defined it. The Great Torc of Snettisham is an example of superb metalwork, which rivals the Romans own, while the Maiden Castle hill-fort is evidence of a developing and urbanised civilisation. Although it is undeniable that the Romans were integral in the British transition out of the Iron Age, these sources demonstrate that, given time, the British would undoubtedly have achieved it on their own. Furthermore, the Roman invasion of Britain was steeped in tyranny and oppression. The pervasiveness of usury, in combination with the cruelty that was evident during the lead up to the Boudiccan revolt, confirms this. The process of Romanisation planted the buds of civilisation but severed the limbs of freedom.

Bibliography
Ibeji, D. M. (2011, February 17). An overview of Roman Britain. Retrieved April 25, 2013, from BBC History: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/questions_01.shtml Laing, L., & Laing, J. (1995). Celtic Britain and Ireland: art and society. Herbert Press. Mellor, R. (1994). Tacitus' Annals. London: Routledge. Salway, P. (1981). Roman Britain. Oxford University Press. Schama, S. (2009). A History Of Britain. London: The Bodley Head. Various. (n.d.). Roman Britain. Retrieved from British Muesum: http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/british_museum_roman_britain.pdf Various. (n.d.). The Snettisham Great Torc. Retrieved from Western Australian Museum: http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/extraordinary-stories/highlights/snettisham-great-torc Weigel, R. (2011, February 9). The History Channel's Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire (1/5). Kentucky University. Images 1. The Great Torc of Snettisham

Image sourced from: The British Museum: http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_prb/t/the_great_torc_from_snettisha th m.aspx, 12 May, 2013.

2. Roman Baths, Bath, England.

Image sourced from: Tourist Spots From Around The World: http://www.touristspots.org/the-roman-baths-in-england-united-kingdom/, 12th May, 2013