Roman Invaders
Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age men came in succession to dwell in our Derbyshire hills. The lowlands were covered then with oak forest, which these people never attempted to clear. So it happened that prehistoric man had no village at Derby.
The Romans, having conquered the south of England, sent an "expeditionary force" about A.D. 51 against the Brigantes, a warlike British tribe, to whom Derbyshire belonged. Though their king, Venutius, was a bold leader, our county was subdued. History first became aware of Venutius as the husband of Cartimandua, queen of the Brigantes, in about 51 AD. After the British resistance leader, Caratacus was defeated by Publius Ostorius Scapula in Wales, he fled north to the Brigantes, only to be handed over to the Romans by Cartimandua. While the Brigantes were nominally an independent kingdom, Tacitus says Cartimandua and Venutius were loyal to Rome and "defended by Roman power". After the capture of Caratacus, Venutius became the most prominent leader of resistance to the Roman occupation. Cartimandua had tired of him and married his armour-bearer, Vellocatus, whom she elevated to the kingship in Venutius's place. Initially, Venutius sought only to overthrow his ex-wife, only later turning his attention to her Roman protectors. The Romans defended their client queen and Venutius's revolt was defeated by Caesius Nasica during the governorship of Aulus Didius Gallus (52 - 57 AD). Taking advantage of Roman instability during the year of four emperors, Venutius revolted again, this time in 69 AD. Cartimandua appealed for troops from the Romans, who were only able to send auxiliaries. Cartimandua was evacuated and Venutius took the kingdom. This second revolt may have had wider repercussions: Tacitus says that Vespasian, once emperor, had to "recover" Britain. He also says, introducing the events of the year of four emperors, that Britain was abandoned having only just been subdued (although some think this is referring to the consolidation of Agricola's later conquests in Caledonia (Scotland)). What happened to Venutius after the accession of Vespasian is not recorded. Quintus Petillius Cerialis (governor 71 to 74 AD) campaigned against the Brigantes, but they were not completely subdued for many decades: Agricola (governor 78 to 84 AD) appears to have campaigned in Brigantian territory, and both the Roman poet Juvenal and the Greek geographer Pausanias refer to warfare against the Brigantes in the first half of the second century.
When our county was subdued there were no farms or villas built here, as in the south. Wild, like all British highlands, it was a military area, where an "army of occupation" kept native Britons in subjection. To house this army, fortified camps were built. One of these, which we know as Little Chester, was the first human settlement within the boundaries of today's Derby and is the oldest part of it. Roman officers grasped the importance of this position as a road centre. They made a west-to-east highway (we call it Long Lane) at the foot of the hills. Their great south road, Rykneld Street, going to Burton and Bath, connected the Roman civilised colony of southern England with the military zone in the north. Originally this road went along the line of Nuns Street, crossed the Derwent by a bridge and, having passed through the camp, climbed the valley side towards Chesterfield.
Another road was the one that the Romans built through
Weston Underwood to their bathing village at Buxton. Lastly, they had a road
along the Derwent gap through Milford, to the mines around Wirksworth, for they
had discovered the lead ore in the limestone. At this time the Roman army had
two kinds of soldiers the Legions, made up of Roman citizens, and the
Auxiliaries, or colonial troops, like our former Sikh regiments from India.
These Auxiliaries were used to man the frontier stations of the Empire, though never
those in their homeland. Those stationed at Little Chester may have come from France.
Imagine an auxiliary, dressed in a kilt-like garment with a cloak over his
shoulders, and armed with iron spear and round shield, coming to Little Chester
from the south in the year A.D. 100. He had little fear of being surprised in the
forest, for the trees were cleared on either side of Rykneld Street. At the river bridge, he caught sight of
the camp on the spot where City Road now crosses Old Chester Road. He noted
approvingly that the fort was well placed for defence on a slight rise near the river,
which gave a good water supply. On his left were the public baths, on the ground
now called Parker's Piece. The flues for the hot air heating of the rooms were
actually seen when Derby School playing fields were laid out. Since all Roman
camps were built to the same plan, this soldier needed no guide as he marched
along a causeway.
A plan of the several Roman roads which meet at Little Chester.
The chief of these is Rykneld Street, a great military highway.
Reconstruction of the Roman Camp at Little Chester.
He would have marched over the ditch surrounding the camp and through a gate in a massive earth rampart surmounted by a strong wooden stockade. The wall was patrolled and he was challenged by a guard at the gate. The camp, most of which has vanished, was an oblong of 600 ft. by 500 ft. Rykneld Street went through the middle of it from one gate to another opposite and was wide enough to allow bands of soldiers to move quickly to the gates. The fort was planned as a chessboard pattern of lanes along which wooden buildings for barracks and stables were built. The soldier went quickly to the centre, where he reported at headquarters, near which was the altar where the General officiated when sacrifices were made to the Roman gods, the place where he sat as judge in cases of crime or dispute, and a kind of open square, the forum, where soldiers paraded. In the streets, he met native Britons working as camp servants, and from the northern rampart he could see the thatched roofs of their village in today's Darley Fields (Darley Park).
Little Chester was only a frontier fort in a forest, where the life of an auxiliary soldier far from his homeland was simple and rough. He would spend his time in military exercises, as part of watch parties, repairing defences and on occasional punitive raids against the Britons. He would attend the ceremonies when the General sacrificed to the gods-Mercury was perhaps one, for a stone carving of the god with his wand and winged hat has been found. Ordinarily, the soldier would have bread, imported wine and a little meat for his meals. He might bathe, hunt in the forest, feast now and then, and certainly gamble. Much of the camp work was done by servants or slaves taken from the native British village. Pottery, some made in Staffordshire and some not far away at Duffield, has been dug up. Jug-like pots, cooking jars and drinking vessels there was all homely crockery for daily use. Querns, or hand-mills, made of stone tell how corn was laboriously ground into flour, no doubt by native women. Among the clay-ware were mortars, different from ours, for they were wide shallow dishes with a spout. Wooden pestles were used with them to grind up meat to a paste-a favourite method of preparing it in olden times when table knives and forks were unknown. There were some small glass bottles, rusted remains of knives, and bronze brooches (fibulas), with which Romans fastened their dress. Nothing remains of their leather-covered shields, but corroded iron spearheads have been found. There was, however, some luxury in the rough camp, as fragments of beautiful Samian ware, brought all the way from Europe, tell us.
All of these and more were found at the sites in Derby. Many coins have been picked up -part of the soldiers pay – a sign that there were shops in the camp. Little Chester was made about the year A.D. 80 when Flavian was Roman Emperor. Evidently, it was important, for though other Derbyshire camps were at times deserted, Little Chester, as the dates on found coins tell us, was in continuous occupation from A.D. 80 to about A.D. 370. These three hundred years covered a time as long as that since King Charles I started the Civil War. Built at a knot of important roads, where lowland touched highland, this camp, or fort, kept communications open, guarded the Wirksworth lead mines, and overawed the Britons of the lower Peak. About A.D. 400 barbarians began to overwhelm the Roman Empire and soldiers were withdrawn from Britain. One day, with kilts swinging, the Auxiliaries marched southwards along Rykneld Street, abandoning Little Chester. Not a tool, not a broken pot, nor a bone remain to tell that the Britons stayed on because the native village became deserted and our town area went back to a forest.
Little visually remains at Little Chester today or Chester Green as it is now called. The remains include two Roman wells, one on Marcus Street and the other in the garden of the vicarage of St Paul’s Church. However, a series of excavations in the last fifty years have established both its importance and prosperity, including the discovery of an underfloor heating system (hypocaust) on Parker’s Piece and the abundance of coins and pottery.
Under that grid is one of the Roman Wells in Marcus Street
Adjacent to the well, seen in the gardens of the houses that have been built on the site. We see the foundation stones of a timber-framed Roman building.
The first book to cover these sites in the county was Naylor (1983) in his ‘Ancient wells and springs of Derbyshire’, however this did not contain many holy wells (13 true holy wells) and appears more concerned with industrial uses of water. Hope (1893) covers a number of sites and the author himself was a Derbyshire man and after his death, his notes made for a second edition, were passed onto the Reverend Binnall. Thanks to him, these additional notes as well as those already published were collated for an article for the Trans. Derby Antiq. and Nat Hist. Society. Harte (2008) provides the most complete survey giving 39 sites, but as this comes from incomplete research notes it is still not complete. Hence this work, hopes to draw together all references, and fresh research to provide the definitive work. The age of well dedications is always problematic. Derbyshire has a small number of sites whose name is suggestive of pre-Roman but this is only based on possible pagan names (class D). Roman sites are suggested at Buxton, Bradwell, doubtlessly erroneously at Stoney Middleton. Derbyshire is famous for Buxton Spa and Matlock Bath, but not surprisingly there were several attempts to establish similar large scale (Bakewell) to medium sized (Derby, Stoney Middleton, Quarndon, Kedleston) to small affairs (the largest amount with 25 sites). Therefore there are 32 C sites in the county, although this does not include sloughs which were used to utilise their thermal waters. The trend seen in Nottinghamshire of naming all mineral waters, spas, irrespective of how slight they are is continued into the county. Derbyshire’s spa and mineral waters has received greater recognition and the high number of sites is clearly this time geographically based due to the nature of the minerals in this area. Lists exist (Farey (1818)) of notable water supplies but very few appear to have been frequented or acknowledged beyond these texts.
Roman roads followed the Roman forts and began to knit the newly conquered province together. Although the Romans undoubtedly made some use of roving ways and tracks which had criss-crossed Derbyshire for generations, the permanent new highways were uniquely a Roman phenomenon. One road for example called The Derbyshire Portway, is an ancient prehistoric trackway which can be traced from Mam Tor in the north of Derbyshire to the Hemlock Stone on the edge of Nottingham and many believe it was a key trade route before the Romans came.
The Derbyshire Portway
In an island previously composed of squabbling rival Iron Age kingdoms, the new road network, swooping from town to city and fort to port, effectively announced that the colony known as Britannia was now a single entity and part of the Roman Empire with common laws and standards. The roads also made easy long-distance travel possible for everyone, from visiting emperors and their courts to poor agricultural labourers.
Initially though, the Roman roads were not an aid to trade or social mobility; they were intended rather to directly assist the movement of the army and ensure that troops could reinforce forts and quickly reach trouble spots. In the early years the crunch and scrape of hundreds of hobnailed caligae army boots on newly finished gravel road surfaces must have been a common sound in Derbyshire.
Were the roads carefully planned in advance, or was it the case that rough tracks like The Derbyshire Portway, later became roads, and were beaten through the vegetation in the wake of the march of the soldiers? Both methods were probably used; the Romans were hard-working and pragmatic in achieving their aims. They were also practical and, to us, shameless users and recyclers of local materials, filling holes in the ground at Navio with bits of their own classical columns and using coal, river pebbles or whatever else was at hand to build and repair their roads. The date at which these roads were first built cannot be fixed with certainty but some clues must lie with the forts. An early form of Ryknield Street, for example, may have been in place in the 50sAD to provide access to Templeborough from Strutt's Park, both of which date from that decade. On this basis the road from Templeborough to Brough may date to the late 70sAD or early 80sAD since this was when the latter fort was being constructed. Other Roman roads in the Peak and north Derbyshire are believed to date to the 70sAD when the Roman army moved into Brigantia.
Many Roman roads are known in Derbyshire; several more roads are suspected and some are still being found; many minor roads and tracks have no doubt been lost. For a county with relatively little national renown for its Roman archaeology today, the Roman road networks in Derbyshire were surprisingly extensive and is now aptly difficult to unravel. Indeed, to investigate the issue in depth is like entering a dark forest where one risks wandering lost and confused for years.
A map showing iron age kingdoms in England
Claudius
The Land to be known as Derbyshire became part of Roman Britannia because Claudius, the stuttering Emperor (who was found hiding behind curtains when he heard that his predecessor Caligula had been stabbed to death by his own guards), wanted to win a war. Claudius was one of those leaders who would look for excuses to start a war and in his case the reasons were a mixture of the old and the new. His ancestor, the great Julius Caesar, had invaded southern Britain a century earlier on the pretext that Rome's enemies in Gaul were getting support from their allies on the other side of the Channel. Although Caesar's army returned permanently to Gaul in 54BC his expeditions started, or intensified, contact between the people of Britain and the Roman Empire over the next hundred years. Indeed, Caesar had even described a portion of the islands in his account of the war in Gaul and so it was known that Britain possessed desirable qualities such as fertile land, timber and precious metals.
With this knowledge, and Caesar's example of invasion behind them, Rome's Emperors of the early first century had occasionally turned their eyes to the western fringe of their Empire and considered adding Britain to their colonies. Hence, Claudius' decision to invade was really an old idea waiting to be taken out and dusted off. An excuse for war came in the aftermath of a power struggle among one of the ruling clans of southern England; an ousted pro-Roman king, called Verica, fled to Rome; his enemies in Britain demanded his return; the Roman Senate refused to send him back. In this tense stand-off, Verica’s plea that Claudius should send an army to Britain gave the emperor a reason for invasion. Yet into these events must be woven the emperor’s personality and his personal desire for military glory, which he believed could be obtained through a quick victory in Britain. This, in turn, may be connected to the fact that Claudius, unlike the deified Julius and many later Emperors, was not a soldier and had no significant prior military reputation to prove his spurs with the people or the army. His reign had had notably shaky foundations. When Claudius was discovered hiding by a soldier in 41AD he thought he was going to be killed like his uncle Caligula. Instead, at the age of 50, he was acclaimed emperor. Nervy and apprehensive about his reign and personal safety, Caludius soon saw conquering Britain as a way of strengthening his popularity and giving him a reputation as a military leader. As the Roman biographer Suetonius wrote, Claudius “decided that Britain was the country where a real triumph could be most easily gained.” The invasion came in 43AD.
Stater issued by Verica.
Verica (early 1st century AD) was a British client king of the Roman Empire in the years preceding the Claudian invasion of 43 AD.
The Our City Our River (OCOR) project, developed by the Environment Agency and Derby City Council, was aimed at reducing flood risk on the River Derwent while creating a high-quality riverside, linking the city centre with the river.
Stukeley’s 1721 plan overlain on modern topography showing excavation locations and outline of successive forts.
Within this project, enhancements were made to flood defences in Little Chester, situated northeast of the city centre, at the location of the Roman fort and settlement known as Derventio. The project had a linear nature, rather than being a comprehensive open-area endeavour, yet it ultimately created a 500-meter-long cross-section through the fort, its surrounding village, and protective structures. It effectively connected areas that had previously been investigated independently and in a fragmented manner, offering fresh perspectives on the history of Roman and subsequent habitation.
This initiative was executed as part of the planning process and was developed in consultation with Historic England and the archaeological team of Derbyshire County Council, acting as advisors to Derby City Council.
The site of Little Chester has been widely recognised, dating back to the 1720s with the visit of the antiquarian William Stukeley. Various excavation campaigns took place in the 20th century, including the ground breaking work by Sherwin in the 1920s, as well as subsequent investigations spanning from the 1960s to the 1980s. These endeavours unveiled an intricate foundation that commenced in the late 1st century AD, replacing the earlier fort at Strutt's Park located west of the river. The sequence extended to late Roman abandonment and the potential re-establishment in the post-Roman period. The OCOR project has pinpointed significant components within this sequence, shedding new light, especially on the fort's initial establishment and subsequent reutilisation.
Sizeable ditches dating back to the late 1st century were observed in several areas around the fort. They were located southwest of the fort, inside its north-western corner, and further north and east underneath the vicus situated in the playing fields. When combined with findings from prior excavations, these early ditches, oriented differently from the fortified region identified by Stukeley, suggest the presence of an early fort covering an area of up to 5 hectares. The east-west alignment of this early fort explains the peculiar skewed road arrangement within the later fort. Previous excavations had already revealed a burnt layer on the east and southeast, predating the construction of the late fort's turf rampart. While this layer had not been previously identified within the north-western part of the fort, it was found in three locations along the western defences during the recent investigations. This discovery implies that the destruction or clearance layer is more widespread or perhaps specifically associated with clearance along the defensive perimeter.
To refine the dates associated with these activities, extensive sampling for radiocarbon dating was conducted, coupled with Bayesian chronological modelling. Additionally, sections of Rykneld Street, a Roman road, were uncovered within the vicus to the northeast of the fort. This excavation also exposed connecting side roads and paved yard surfaces, shedding new light on the layout and sequence of activities in this area.
Towards the end of the excavation sequence, two human burials were unearthed within the north-western quarter of the fort. These burials likely form part of a larger cemetery, indicated by several skeletons discovered by Sherwin in the vicinity during the 1920s. Radiocarbon dating was performed, revealing that the oldest burial dates to the late 8th or 9th centuries, with the later burial being from the 9th to 10th century. It is apparent that the northwestern quarter of the Roman fort was used as a cemetery by the Mercian residents of Derby. This usage coincided with the return of Aeldorman Aethelwulf's body to Northworthy (the Saxon name for the city) in AD 871 and overlapped with documented Viking occupation and battles that occurred within the city gates in AD 917.
The location of Northworthy has long been a subject of uncertainty, leaving open questions regarding whether it might correspond with the site referred to as Deoraby by the Danes. The newfound evidence of burials within the fort's defences, along with fresh indications of ditches being recut on both the northern and southern defences, strengthens the argument for Little Chester as Northworthy and adds a novel chapter to the site's historical narrative.
It is often asked, why did the Romans come to Britain? Their main goal was to make their empire as big and powerful as possible. They were also seeking natural resources, such as precious metals, slaves, and farmland. Britain had lots of materials including iron, lead, copper, silver, and gold that the Romans needed to support their growing empire and army.
Julius Caesar first landed in Britain on August 26th, 55 BC, but it was almost another hundred years before the Romans actually conquered Britain in AD 43
Julius Caesar
After successfully subduing Gaul, or at least that was the perception at the time, Julius Caesar set forth on an expedition to Britain. This endeavour occurred late in the campaigning season, and it's unclear if his primary goal was conquest. More likely, it was a reconnaissance mission with the aim of enhancing his reputation back in Rome and delaying any potential recall, which could expose him to his adversaries. Caesar might have also been influenced by certain British chieftains who saw the Romans as potential allies against rival tribes. Regardless of Caesar's intentions, he encountered a formidable adversary in the form of British weather!
To rally support for the Romans among the British tribes, a Gaulish chieftain named Commius was dispatched across the Channel, while a trusted officer was sent to scout the coast. Caesar gathered a fleet of eighty ships at Boulogne to transport two legions, the Seventh and the Tenth, along with irregular troops, totalling approximately 12,000 men. The cavalry and their horses were to sail separately from Ambleteuse, a few miles to the north. After patiently awaiting a favourable wind, the Roman fleet departed Boulogne in the early hours of August 26th and sighted the iconic white cliffs of Dover around 9 a.m. However, the cliffs were heavily fortified with menacing British warriors, including horsemen and war chariots, making it an inhospitable landing site.
Caesar chose to wait offshore for hours, hoping for the cavalry, which had become stranded in Ambleteuse due to tides and adverse winds. In the afternoon, the Roman fleet decided to sail northeast without the cavalry, passing the South Foreland and reaching the extensive flat shoreline to the north. Meanwhile, the Britons moved along the coast on land to keep pace.
The Roman ships cautiously approached and anchored offshore, likely in the vicinity of present-day Deal. The legionaries faced the daunting prospect of wading ashore burdened with weapons and equipment, while the Britons pelted them with javelins and menacingly rode back and forth on the beach. The situation seemed discouraging until the standard-bearer of the Tenth Legion boldly leaped into the sea, urging his comrades to follow and defend the standard. This courageous act inspired others, and gradually, more Romans overcame the waves and reached the beach. After fierce combat, the legionaries managed to form ranks, charge the Britons, and put them to flight. However, lacking cavalry, they couldn't pursue their advantage, and they established a camp.
The Britons, recognising the dire situation, sent envoys to Caesar, seeking peace, and among them was Commius, who had somewhat of a humiliating return. Caesar demanded hostages from the Britons, and after four days, on the 30th, the cavalry transports finally appeared. Unfortunately, they were hit by a sudden, fierce storm and forced back to Gaul. The storm coincided with an unusually high tide, causing many of Caesar's ships to drag their anchors and wreck on the beach. The Britons took notice of this and began to regroup their forces. The Romans initiated repairs on their damaged vessels, but they now faced shortages of food. Small parties ventured into the countryside to harvest crops and gather supplies, but the Seventh Legion fell into an ambush by British chariots and horsemen. Thankfully for the Romans, the dust raised by the attack alerted Caesar in the camp, and he hurried with reinforcements. After days of incessant rain, Caesar finally lured the British into a pitched battle, which was the preferred engagement for Roman commanders facing a relatively undisciplined barbarian enemy. The British suffered heavy casualties but remained elusive, preventing effective pursuit. Caesar eventually decided that he had had enough and embarked his men on the ships, sailing back to Gaul.
Caesar with his usual keenness observed the Britons and made inquiries about them at the same time that he was carrying on war with them. The results of his investigations as he gives them in his narrative, incorrect as some of his statements probably are, furnish us our first satisfactory information concerning the inhabitants of the island of Britain.
"The inland portions of Britain are inhabited by those who themselves say that according to tradition they are natives of the soil; the coast regions are peopled by those who crossed from Belgium for the purpose of making war. Almost all of these are called by the names of those states from which they are descended and from which they came hither. After they had waged war they remained there and began to cultivate the soil. The island has a large population, with many buildings constructed after the fashion of the Gauls, and abounds in flocks. For money they use either gold coins or bars of iron of a certain weight. Tin is found in the inland regions, iron on the seacoast; but the latter is not plentiful. They use imported bronze. All kinds of wood are found here, as in Gaul, except the beech and fir trees. They consider it contrary to divine law to eat the hare, the chicken, or the goose. They raise these, however, for their own amusement and pleasure. The climate is more temperate than in Gaul, since there are fewer periods of cold. . . .
By far the most civilized are those who dwell in Kent. Their entire country borders on the sea, and they do not differ much from the Gauls in customs. Very many who dwell farther inland do not sow grain but live on milk and flesh, clothing themselves in skins. All the Britons paint themselves with woad, which produces a dark blue color; and for this reason they are much more frightful in appearance in battle. They permit their hair to grow long, shaving all parts of the body except the head and the upper lip. Ten and twelve have wives 16common among them, especially brothers with brothers and parents with children; if any children are born they are considered as belonging to those men to whom the maiden was first married. . . .
This is their manner of fighting from chariots. At first the charioteers ride in all directions, usually throwing the ranks into confusion by the very terror caused by the horses, as well as the noise of the wheels; then as soon as they have come between the squads of horsemen, they leap from the chariots and fight on foot. The drivers of the chariots then withdraw a little from the battle and place the chariots together, so that if the warriors are hard pressed by the number of the enemy, they have a safe retreat to their own. Their horsemen possess such activity and their foot soldiers such steadfastness in battle and they accomplish so much by daily training that on steep and even precipitous ground they are accustomed to check their excited horses, to control and turn them about quickly, to run out on the pole, to stand on the yoke, and then swiftly to return to the chariot."
Caesar made another attempt the following year, leading a more robust and better-prepared force of five legions on a second expedition. This expedition took him across the Thames at Brentford. Yet, once again, unfavorable weather and gales wreaked havoc on his ships and supplies. After reaching a face-saving treaty with a local British king, Caesar returned to Gaul. It would be nearly a century before the Romans finally succeeded in conquering Britain in AD 43.
The Roman conquest of Britain in AD43 was led by the Roman Emperor Claudius.
Roman Emperor Claudius. great-great-grandnephew of Gaius Julius Caesar
Claudius, whose full name was Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, held the position of the fourth Roman emperor from 41 to 54 A.D. He is primarily celebrated for the successful expansion of the Roman Empire into regions such as Britain, parts of Africa, and the Middle East. Claudius was a skilled and effective leader, renowned for his contributions to the empire's judicial system, the enactment of laws that protected enslaved laborers, the extension of Roman citizenship, and the enhancement of citizens' rights.
During his reign, many contemporaries perceived him as a ruler of lesser strength compared to his predecessors. However, much of the public remained unaware of the full extent of this emerging leader's abilities, as he was the sole surviving heir of Emperor Augustus.
Claudius grappled with a range of physical afflictions and health issues, including tremors affecting his head and hands, a noticeable limp, a perpetually runny nose, and episodes of foaming at the mouth. Historians have, over time, speculated that he might have had cerebral palsy or possibly Tourette's syndrome. However, his family perceived his condition as a symbol of weakness and a cause of significant public embarrassment. Allegedly, even his own mother referred to him as "a grotesque creation, one that nature initiated but never brought to completion," and his sister reportedly prayed that Rome would never have to endure his ascension to the imperial throne.
In addition to the challenges posed by his physical condition, Claudius endured a ceaseless cycle of humiliation at the hands of his nephew, the Roman Emperor Caligula. According to the ancient historian Suetonius, Caligula took great pleasure in ridiculing his uncle for his infirmities. In one notable instance, when Claudius nodded off during dinner gatherings, guests were openly encouraged to throw "olive and date stones" at him.
Claudius' physical challenges led to his consistent exclusion from opportunities for significant public office. Throughout much of his youth, he was deliberately kept out of the public eye, and his royal relatives took deliberate measures to place him far down the line of succession. His uncle, Emperor Tiberius, repeatedly turned down Claudius' requests to embark on a political career, opting instead to assign him to less prestigious priesthoods. Given these circumstances, Claudius abandoned his aspirations in the political arena and instead indulged in a lifestyle characterised by drinking, gambling, and pursuing romantic interests. This continued until A.D. 37 when his nephew Caligula ascended to the imperial throne. Caligula, despite his inexperience and vulnerability, aimed to bolster his claim to the throne, leading him to appoint Claudius, who was nearly 46 years old at the time, as his co-consul.
In the moments when he wasn't preoccupying himself with alcohol and games of chance, Claudius devoted extensive hours to the world of literature and academic pursuits. Despite being dismissed as a dullard by his own family, he possessed a sharp intellect that left an impression on the historian Livy. Livy, in fact, encouraged Claudius to take up writing. Subsequently, Claudius went on to create numerous volumes delving into subjects like the history of Carthage, the Etruscans, the Roman Republic, and even the Roman alphabet. Regrettably, all of these writings by the future emperor have been lost to history, but they seem to have garnered a reasonable degree of respect during their era. The renowned Roman historian Tacitus even drew upon Claudius' work as a source for his own literary compositions.
In A.D. 41, a cabal of Praetorian Guards—the sworn protectors of the Roman emperor—assassinated Caligula and brutally murdered his wife and child at the imperial palace. As the story goes, upon hearing the commotion, a frightened Claudius ran for his life and took refuge on a balcony. The Praetorians eventually found him cowering behind a curtain, but rather than killing him, they saluted him as Rome’s new emperor. Claudius’ disabilities may have given the impression that he could be easily manipulated, but once in power, he showed himself to be cleverer than previously believed. Claudius deftly avoided a confrontation with the Roman senate, and purchased the loyalty of the Praetorian Guard with a massive 15,000-sesterce per man donative. His ailments appeared to improve after he took the throne, and he later claimed that he had only pretended to be dimwitted to protect himself. Some historians have even argued that he helped plan or was at least aware of the plot on Caligula’s life.
Caligula is known as The Most Sadistic Roman Emperor In History.
Upon taking power, Claudius faced rabid opposition from Rome’s senators, many of whom viewed him as a weak and illegitimate claimant to the throne. To help prove himself as a leader, he launched one of the most audacious military campaigns of the 1st century: the conquest of Britain.
In A.D. 43, he dispatched a force of 40,000 troops and several war elephants across the English Channel. The Romans had soon conquered a stronghold at modern day Colchester, and eventually succeeding in capturing the Catuvellauni tribal leader Caratacus. Claudius visited Britain during the invasion and remained for 16 days before returning to a hero’s welcome in Rome. He was later honoured with a triumphal arch on the Via Flaminia that hailed him as the man who “brought barbarian peoples beyond Ocean for the first time under Rome’s sway.”
During the following 45 years, the Roman military steadily expanded its dominion across a significant portion of what is now England and Wales, and they even ventured into regions that are part of modern-day Scotland. Over time, they succeeded in creating a fresh Roman province known as Britannia, which remained an integral part of the empire until the early 5th century AD.
Before the Romans invaded, the islands of Britain had no single political or cultural identity. Many peoples lived in Britain, in large, independent tribal groups, led by powerful kings and queens. The tribes each controlled their own extensive territories and resources, and they did not always live in peace with one another.
As a pretext for invasion, Claudius may have used the expulsion from Britain of the pro-Roman king, Verica of the Atrebates, by the Catuvellauni. Hostile to Roman influence, the Catuvellaunian brothers Caratacus and Togodumnus had been leading attacks on the Atrebates and extending their area of influence westwards from their homelands north of the Thames. This meant that a powerful anti-Roman party was gaining wider control of southern Britain.
For Claudius, a successful invasion would bring glory and popularity. It promised booty and access to the considerable natural resources of Britain, and it would also satisfy the army. Underpinning the prospect of invasion was the Romans’ innate belief in their right to conquer non-Roman peoples. They were confident that the gods had gifted them the known world and that it was their right and duty to rule it all in their ‘civilised’ manner.
These double ditches are part of a much larger fortification that protected the Roman beachhead at Richborough.
Roman historical accounts of the invasion are few, brief and not entirely reliable. None is contemporary. The longest was written in Greek by the historian Cassius Dio, around AD 200. What we know of the invasion must therefore be pieced together from these sketchy written sources and the chance survival of archaeological evidence.
Boulogne is thought to have been the port of embarkation, though the mouths of the Somme and Seine rivers have also been suggested. According to Cassius Dio the invasion force sailed in three divisions. This was probably a practical solution to crossing the Channel, where the prevailing winds, tidal variations and long time required to marshal hundreds of ships safely demanded a phased movement to avoid chaos and confusion, and to allow sequenced and ordered landings.
Historians and archaeologists do not agree about where the Roman army landed. Most think a single place is more likely than three different points, on the basis that one landing would have concentrated the army’s strength. Chichester harbour on the south coast and Richborough in the south-east are seen as the most plausible locations. There is evidence of Claudian military occupation at both places, but the extreme difficulties of sailing a large fleet in the Channel probably favour Richborough, because the crossing was much shorter, and the prevailing wind and tide conditions were easier to negotiate. The Roman fortification of Claudian date known from archaeological work at Richborough, located on what was in AD 43 a small island adjacent to a large natural harbour, may have served to protect the soldiers and supplies during disembarkation.
The Roman general Aulus Plautius commanded an invasion force that probably comprised the heavy infantry of four Roman legions, numbering 20,000 soldiers, and a similar number of multi-purpose auxiliary troops, including cavalry, giving a total of about 40,000. The organisation required to transport such a large force of men, animals and supplies was immense. The Roman navy probably needed a fleet of between 700 and 1,000 transport ships and warships for the task.
The Roman army was a formidable machine. It had highly developed tactical capabilities to fight both disciplined set-piece battles and smaller tactical actions. Facing the Romans was a far less organised, but no less brave, British opposition of warriors on foot, in chariots and on horseback – who were fighting on ground familiar to them.
The likely landing locations suggest two possible scenarios for the campaign. If the landing was at Chichester, the aim may have been to restore the pro-Roman kingdom of the Atrebates in southern Britain, and then to march north to the Thames and down the Thames valley into the heart of Catuvellauni territory to capture Colchester, the Catuvellaunian capital. From Richborough, on the other hand, the Romans could have taken a shorter, more direct route along the North Downs, crossed the Thames near London, and marched on to take Colchester. The latter scenario is the most widely accepted.
Cassius Dio records two major battles. One of these, at a river crossing, involved Roman auxiliary cavalry swimming across with their horses to make a successful flank attack on the British warriors. The river Medway, which lay on the Roman route from Richborough, seems the most likely site for this battle, though the river Arun north of Chichester has been suggested too. Historians mostly agree that the second large battle was on the banks of the Thames and resulted in the defeat of the Catuvellauni.
Dio’s narrative also includes the submission of the Dobunni, a tribe centred in Gloucestershire, where Aulus Plautius established a Roman garrison.
Plautius summoned Claudius, who was probably waiting at Boulogne. Claudius arrived with his Praetorian cohorts – and, according to Cassius Dio, war elephants – to take part in the final assault on Colchester. Charging elephants were a formidable and terrifying sight in battle, particularly perhaps to the Britons, who would not have seen them before. Claudius’ arrival for the surrender of the Catuvellauni, and the disarming of other Britons, was enough to secure for him the military prestige required to consolidate his imperial throne.
Cassius Dio records that 11 British kings surrendered to Claudius. Caratacus escaped to fight again in later years, alongside warriors from other British tribes further north and west.
We have little historical evidence for the rest of this campaign. However, Suetonius, writing around AD 120, recorded a prominent role played by one of Plautius’ commanders, Titus Flavius Vespasianus (later the emperor Vespasian), with the legion II Augusta. Vespasian’s role after Colchester was probably in the west, because Suetonius mentions the Isle of Wight. Some of this campaign may have been conducted from a rear base at Alchester (Oxfordshire), where there is archaeological evidence for a legionary fortress. The fortress, which had an annexe added to it in the winter of AD 44/45, may have been built in AD 43. Another, more forward campaign fortress of legionary size is known at Lake Farm, Wimborne (Dorset), and there is a smaller fort inside a hillfort of the Durotriges tribe at Hod Hill (Dorset).
It was around AD 50 that the Romans reached Derby, where this post begins.