No More Learning

Numerous alien barbaric peoples (Slavs, Germans, Sarmatians, etc. ) were
under his sway. The Eastern Empire paid him a yearly tribute. He was
on friendly terms with Aëtius, the general of the Western Empire, who
on this account gave up to him a part of Pannonia, the province of
Savia. Rua's successors were his nephews, Bleda and Attila, the sons of
Mundzuk (c. 433).
They first of all reigned jointly, each ruling over a definite number
of tribes but maintaining the unity of their empire, while in questions of
foreign politics both rulers co-operated. Bleda's personality traditionally
fades into obscurity beside Attila's. Attila was hideous to look upon,
little, broad-shouldered, with big head, flat nose and scanty beard. He
was covetous, vain and, like all despots, careful in the preservation of the
outward appearance of dignity; he was superstitious, unable to read or
write, but of penetrating intellect; he was cunning, audacious and skilled
in all the arts of diplomacy. He is most fitly compared to the for-
midable Mongol king, Chinghiz Khan ; like him he was a mere
conqueror who aimed at destruction and plunder; his supremacy had
therefore only the effect of a devastating tornado, not that of a purifying
thunderstorm which wakes Nature to new life. Certainly he did not
rival the Mongol in cruelty and violence; a wise calculation prevented
him from totally laying waste the territory given over to him; he
respected the law of nations and could be just and magnanimous towards
his enemies. Though surrounded by great pomp he remained simple
and moderate in his manner of life; he would sit at meals with a stern
and earnest countenance, without taking any part in the revelry going
on around him.
The policy of concentrating authority within the nation and ex-
tending it externally which was introduced by Rua was consciously
developed by Bleda and Attila, especially by the latter after he had
in 444 or 445 attained to exclusive dominion by setting aside his
brother and co-ruler. About the year 435 the Sorasgi, possibly a
people of Turkish origin domiciled in South Russia, as well as other
Scythian ” races, were subdued. The Akatziri, living in the district to
a


## p. 361 (#391) ############################################

436–461]
Attila's Policy
361
the north of the Black Sea, who hitherto had been in alliance with the
Huns, were obliged to acknowledge Attila's rule, and he placed his eldest
son Ellak at their head as sub-king (c. 447). The king of the Huns
even thought of extending the eastern frontier of his empire to Media
and Persia. Among the barbarians tributary to him were, besides, the
Alani (on the Don), numerous Slav tribes, some of which lived east of
the Vistula while others, driven out by the Huns, had settled in the
Danubian lands, as had in particular, the Teutons of the Danube basin :
Gepidae, Ostrogoths, Heruli, Rugii, Sciri, Turcilingi, Suevi (Quadi).
Certainly other names of German tribes are mentioned as under Attila's
dominion: Marcomanni, Bastarnae, Burgundians, Bructeri, Franks
(Ripuarii), and perhaps Alemanni on the Neckar, but it is doubtful to
whom they were subject. The Burgundians (on the east Rhine) who had
previously in the year 430 successfully repelled a Hunnic host, the Bructeri
(between the Lippe and the Ruhr), the Franks and Germans on the
Neckar must have voluntarily joined the Huns during the great march
to Gaul (451), so that we are scarcely justified in advancing the western
frontier of the Huns as far as the Rhine. The Germans occupy a con-
spicuous place in the circle around Attila ; it is related of Ardaric, the king
of the Gepidae, that he enjoyed especial consideration from Attila on
account of his fidelity, and that his advice was not without influence on
the decisions of the king of the Huns. Among his trusted counsellors is
mentioned, besides, the famous warrior prince of the Sciri, Edeco (Edica),
Odovacar's father, who in the year 449 was sent to Constantinople as
ambassador. The Ostrogoth king Walamir also is said—though by a
biassed and not unimpeachable authority (Jordanes)—to have enjoyed
Attila's favour. Thus the German peoples mostly maintained their auto-
nomy and were generally only obliged to serve in the army, while other
inferior subject races, in particular the Slavs, forfeited their independence
and were compelled to feed their rulers with the produce of their farms
and cattle. Yet Attila looked upon all subjugated peoples as his slaves
and asserted an absolute right of disposing of their life and property.
All attempts to withdraw from his sovereignty he punished with terrible
cruelty ; the demand for the delivery of fugitives therefore played an
important part in his negotiations with the Romans.
We are, as is natural, most accurately informed of his relations with
the two halves of the Roman Empire. Like Rua Attila maintained a
friendship with Aëtius, at whose disposal he repeatedly placed Hunnish
mercenaries. This relationship was partly brought about by personal
conditions, partly by the endeavour of Attila to divide the Roman power.
With such auxiliaries the general of the Western Empire destroyed
at Worms (435–436) the Burgundian kingdom of legendary fameman
event which later tradition and saga have turned into an expedition
of Attila's against the Burgundians. Numbers of Huns served in the
Roman Army which, in the same way, in 436-439 fought against the
CH. XII,


## p. 362 (#392) ############################################

362
Attila and the Eastern Empire
[433–441
N
Visigoths. On his side Aëtius sent to the king a learned Roman scribe,
Constantius, as private secretary and gave him his own son, Carpilio, as
hostage, for which in return he was honoured with gifts. The office,
also, of a magister militum which Attila held he seems to have obtained
through the Western Empire. The tribute which was paid to him
from thence was disguised under the name of a salary as Roman General-
in-chief. But at the end of the year 440 serious troubles already
disturbed these relations, because Attila repeatedly annoyed the Western
Empire and terrified it with threats under the pretext that fugitives
from his dominion had found refuge there.
The same degrading treatment must have befallen the Eastern
Roman Empire which was under the sovereignty of the incapable
Emperor Theodosius II. A complete overthrow and destruction of
the Eastern Empire was not Attila's intention. His policy on the
contrary aimed at keeping it, by continual extortions of money and
actual depredations, in a state of permanent weakness and incapacity to
resist. And as he insisted that all deserters should be given up to him
he deprived the Romans of the means of strengthening their army by
recruiting among the barbaric peoples of the Danube lands. These
leading ideas came clearly to light at once in the first treaty which the
two kings of the Huns concluded with the Emperor soon after their
accession (c. 433). It was agreed that the Romans should no longer
receive fugitives from the Huns and that these, as well as the Roman
prisoners of war who had escaped from the country of the Huns, should
be given up unless a ransom was paid for each of the latter. Besides,
the Emperor must not assist any barbarian people that was fighting
against the Huns ; between both the kingdoms there was to be free
commercial intercourse; the tribute of the Romans was doubled and
raised to 700 lbs. of gold. It was clear that the Huns would not be
contented with success so easily gained; if they nevertheless kept
the peace for eight years, it was only because they were occupied with
the subjection of the various Scythian peoples to the north of
the Danube. In the year 441 they were on the war-path and
slaughtered the Romans who had come on account of a market to
the bank of the Danube. A direct reason for the opening of hostilities
was given to them by the East Roman expedition against the Vandals
which had occasioned a withdrawal of frontier troops. This coincidence
of events has given rise to the groundless supposition that Gaiseric and
Attila had at that time formed an alliance. To the Emperor's expostu-
lation the kings replied that the Romans had not paid the tribute regularly,
had sheltered deserters, and also that the bishop of Margus (Pussaro-
vitz) had robbed the Hunnish royal graves of their treasures, and they
threatened him with a continuation of the war unless the fugitives and
the bishop were handed over to them. As the imperial envoys refused
everything the Huns captured the Danube forts Ratiaria, Viminacium,
1


## p. 363 (#393) ############################################

443–448]
Ravages of the Huns
363
Singidunum (Belgrade) and Margus (the last through the treachery
of the bishop, who was afraid of being delivered up) and pressed,
devastating as they went, into the interior of the Balkan lands as far as
the neighbourhood of Constantinople, where they conquered cities like
Naissus (Nisch), Philippopolis and Arcadiopolis. Other Hunnish bands
joined with the Persians made an inroad at the same time over the
Caucasus into the frontier lands of the Eastern Empire. The Roman
army which had in the meantime been called from Sicily by Theodosius
was decisively beaten in the Thracian Chersonesus. The kings of the
Huns dictated peace; and its conditions were still more disgraceful
than before :—the yearly tribute was raised to 2100 lbs. of gold besides
the stipulation of the payment of an indemnity of 6000 lbs. of gold,
and the surrender of fugitives was insisted upon (443).
Already in the year 447 the Huns invaded once more, and again
brought the most terrible calamities upon the Balkan lands. Aregisclus,
the general who opposed the enemy, was beaten and killed after valiant
resistance on the river Utus (Wid) in Lower Moesia, after which the
Hunnish cavalry pressed up the valley of the river Margus (Morava) and
through Thessaly as far as Thermopylae. Some 70 cities and fortresses
are said to have fallen victims to them at that time. When in the year
448 peace was again concluded, Attila demanded that besides the usual
money payments a broad tract of a five days' journey on the right bank
of the Danube from Singidunum to Novae (Sistova) should be left waste;
the boundary was placed at Naissus. But even now Attila would not
leave the Emperor at peace. Embassy after embassy went to Con-
stantinople and, on the standing pretext that not all deserters had yet
been delivered up, continually asserted fresh humiliating claims, the king
being however chiefly desirous of giving his messengers an opportunity
of enriching themselves with the customary gifts. The Eastern Empire
was near a financial collapse; as it could not exert itself to armed
resistance the thought came to the Imperial Government, that is to say
to the court eunuch Chrysaphius in particular, of getting rid of the
king of the Huns by murder. For this deed the co-operation of the
Scirian prince Edeco was sought: he declared himself ready to assist
but immediately betrayed the plan to Attila. The king revenged
himself only by scorning the despicable enemy; the Roman envoys
who had come with Edeco to him, amongst whom was the historian
Priscus, he allowed to withdraw, respecting the law of nations ; he
promised besides to maintain the peace and give up the waste
frontier territory on the Danube, and he did not once press the
demand, made in his first anger, that Chrysaphius should be put to death.
But he sent word to the Emperor that as Attila was a king's son so
was Theodosius an emperor's son, but that as the latter had rendered
himself tributary to the former he thus became his slave and that it was
a shameful action that he, as such, should aim at the life of his master
CH. XIL


## p. 364 (#394) ############################################

364
Battle of the Mauriac Plain
[449–452
a
(449 ? ). Attila might rightly consider himself the lord of the whole
Roman Empire. His authority had been considerably enhanced among
his own people by the discovery, about that time, of a sword buried in
the ground which was regarded as the weapon of the god of war.
It was not until Theodosius died (28 July 450) that these wretched
conditions altered. His successor, the efficient Emperor Marcian, refused,
as soon as he succeeded to the throne, to continue the payment of the
tribute to the king of the Huns, and the Western Empire followed his
example. The outbreak of war was also due to the conduct of Gratia
Justa Honoria, the sister of the Western Emperor Valentinian. She
secretly offered herself as wife to the king of the Huns, but the fulfilment
of the offer was refused because Attila demanded that half of the
Western Empire should be given up to her as her inheritance from her
father. Attila hereupon determined to take possession of the Western
Empire and of Gaul first of all, for here he might reckon with certainty
on the support of the (Ripuarian) Franks who, being split up into two
sections on account of dynastic hostilities, called for his intervention,
and he could in all probability count on at least the benevolent
neutrality of the Visigoths. The story that Gaiseric, out of fear of
Theodoric's vengeance, stirred
up Attila to make war against the Visigoths,
is certainly a fable, for the African kingdom had nothing to fear from
an attack on this side ; nevertheless the Vandal king may have had a
hand in the matter in order to weaken the West Roman Empire still
further. Supposing, however, an agreement between the Goths and the
Romans to be possible, Attila wrote to Theodoric as well as to the
Western Emperor that he was not going to take the field against them
but against their enemies. The history of the Hunnic expedition which
ended in Attila's defeat on the Campus Mauriacus near Troyes (451) has
already been told in another connexion, p. 280. Without being followed
by the victors the Hunnic army returned to Hungary. Attila did not
venture to repeat the expedition into Gaul; on the contrary, in the
following year after having made good his losses he turned towards Italy
where he had not to fear Germanic heroism.
Without encountering any resistance the Hunnic army crossed the
Julian Alps in the spring of 452. After a long siege Aquileia was
a
taken by storm and destroyed; after which the most important fortresses
of Upper Italy, with the exception of Ravenna, easily fell into the
hands of the enemy.
A great many of the inhabitants of the terribly
devastated country sought refuge on the unassailable islands of the
lagoons along the Adriatic coast. Yet the real foundation of Venice
which tradition has connected with the Hunnic invasion can only be
traced back to the invasion of the Lombards (568). After this Attila
bethought himself of marching against Rome, but famine and disease,
which broke out in his army, and the arrival in Italy of succour from
the Eastern Empire, as well as superstitious fear, since the Visigoth


## p. 365 (#395) ############################################

453]
Death of Attila
365
king Alaric had died shortly after his capture of the Eternal City, kept
him from carrying out his plan. When therefore an embassy of the
.
Romans led by Pope Leo I appeared in his camp on the Mincio to
induce him to withdraw, he willingly shewed himself ready to conclude
peace and retire. A contemporary, the chronicler Prosper Tiro, who at
that time was living in the papal service at Rome, has ascribed the
retreat of the “scourge of God” to the influence of Leo's powerful
personality, and later ecclesiastical tradition has naturally further
enhanced the holy man's ostensible service and adorned it with all
manner of supernatural circumstances. But a dispassionate historical
inspection will not allow us to ascribe the saving of Italy solely to the
influence of the Pope. Having returned home Attila demanded of
Marcian the tribute paid by Theodosius, and on the refusal of the
Emperor prepared for war against Eastern Rome. But his sudden
death prevented the realisation of his scheme: he died of hemorrhage
when he was celebrating his wedding (453) with a maiden named
Ildico, the Kriemhild of the Nibelungenlied (the name is a diminutive of
Hilde). The inheritance was divided among his sons, those mentioned by
name being Ellak, Dengisich and Ernac the youngest, Attila's favourite.
But with this was foreshadowed the downfall of the Hunnic power,
which was too much dependent on the personal quality of its leader
to be able to endure.
Of the domestic life and polity of the Huns we have also accurate
knowledge through the genuine fragment of Priscus. The king's head-
quarters were on the Hungarian steppe between the Theiss and Körös
and covered a large area which was enclosed by a circular wooden fence.
In the middle stood the royal residence also fenced round, a wooden
erection consisting of one single hall, Attila's private and public dwelling,
of ingenious architecture and furnished within with great magnificence ?
Among the king's circle the logades were prominent, a nobility founded
on birth and service; these enjoyed the highest consideration with the
ruler and the right to choose from the booty the best spoils and the
richest prisoners, and they formed a kind of council of state. Out of
their midst the body-guard, the military leaders and the envoys were
taken. The highest position amongst them was occupied by Onegesius,
Attila's right hand and first minister, who lived in a palace at the
entrance to the court residence. Besides Huns there were also Germans
and Romans among the logades, who on account of their intelligence
and culture enjoyed especial consideration. At the king's Court therefore
the Latin and Gothic tongues were in predominant use together with
the Hunnic. Attila ruled over his people in a wholly patriarchal
manner; the administration of justice was executed through him per-
sonally in the simplest way, always just without respect of persons. .
1 Stephani gives a plan of the encampment. Der älteste deutsche Wohnbau
und seine Einrichtung, Leipsic, 1902, 1. pp. 173 ff.
>
CH. XII.


## p. 366 (#396) ############################################

366
Government of Attila
The freedom and legal protection which every subject enjoyed caused
many a Roman to leave his home and settle with the uncivilised bar-
barians who knew no kind of taxation. The Huns kept, as before, their
character as nomadic horsemen; they were in their element on the
steppes ; life in towns was repugnant to them. Justly appreciating
these conditions Attila had made no attempt to effect a change in the
mode of life of his people, and never thought of removing to civilised
districts and setting up there a new State. His object was fully attained
by keeping the Romans in subjection and making them fill his treasury.


## p. 367 (#397) ############################################

367
CHAPTER XIII,
(A)
ROMAN BRITAIN.
The character and history of Roman Britain, as of many other
Roman provinces, were predominantly determined by the facts of its
geography. To that cause, or set of causes, more than to any other,
we must attribute alike the Roman desire to conquer the province
and the actual stages of the conquest, the distribution of the troops
employed as permanent garrison, the quality and extent of the Romanised
civilisation, and, lastly, a great part of the long series of incidents by
which the island was lost to Rome and Roman culture.
Geologically, Britain forms the north-west side of a huge valley which
had its south-east side in northern and central France. Down the centre
of this valley ran two rivers, the one flowing south-west along a bed now
covered by the English Channel, the other flowing north-east through a
region now beneath the German Ocean. From these rivers, the land
sloped upwards, south-east to Vosges, Alps and Cevennes, north-west
to Cornwall, Wales and northern Britain. The two rivers have long
vanished. But the configuration of their valleys has lasted. Though
unquiet seas now divide England from north-western Europe, the two
areas, that were once the two sides of the valleys, still look to each
other. Their lowlands lie opposite; their main rivers flow out into the
intervening sea ; their easiest entrances face; each area lies open by
nature to the trade or the brute force of the other; each has its most
fertile, most habitable and least defensible districts next to those of the
other.
Hence comes the peculiar configuration of our island. In south-east
Britain there is little continuous hill-country that rises above the 600 foot
contour line. Instead, wide undulating lowlands, marked by no striking
physical feature and containing little to arrest or even divert the march
of ancient armies or of traders, stretch over all the south and east and
midlands. For hills, we must go north of Trent and Humber or west
of Severn and Exe. There we shall find almost the converse of the
south-east. Throughout a large, scattered region, extending from
Cornwall to the Highlands, the land lies mostly above, and much of
it high above, the 600 foot line; its soil and climate are ill-suited to
CH, XIII.


## p. 368 (#398) ############################################

368
Roman Britain: Conquest (B. C. 55-A. D. 140
[
agriculture; its deep valleys and gorges and wild moors and high peaks
oppose alike the soldier and the citizen.
Behind this upland lies the
Atlantic, and an Atlantic which meant of old the reverse of what it does
to-day. To the ancients, this hill-country was the end of the world;
for us—since Columbus—it is the beginning.
These physical features are reproduced plainly in the early history
of Britain. It was natural that about s. c. 50-A. D. 50 southern Britain
should be occupied by Keltic tribes and even families which had close
kindred in Gaul, and that a lively intercourse should exist between the
two. It was no less natural that, even before Rome had fully conquered
.
Gaul, Caesar's troops should be seen in Kent and Middlesex (B. c. 55–54)
and Roman suzerainty extended over these regions; and when the
annexation of Gaul was finally complete, that of Britain seemed the
obvious sequel. The sequel was, indeed, delayed awhile by political
causes. Augustus (B. C. 43-A. D. 14) had too much else to do: Tiberius
(14-37) saw no need for it, just as he saw no need for any wars of
conquest. But after 37 it became urgent. Changes in southern Britain
had favoured an anti-Roman reaction there and had even perhaps
produced disquiet in northern Gaul; Caligula (37–41) had made
some fiasco in connexion with it; when Claudius succeeded, there was
need of vigorous action and, as it chanced, the leading statesmen of the
moment favoured a forward policy in many lands. The result was a
well-planned and deservedly successful invasion (A. D. 43).
The details of the ensuing war of conquest do not here concern us.
It is enough to say that the lowlands offered little resistance. In one
part of them, near the south-east coast, Roman ways had become familiar
since Caesar's raids. In another part—the midlands—the population was
then, as now, thin. Nowhere (despite the theories of Guest and Green)
were there physical obstacles likely to delay the Roman arms. Ву
47 the invaders had subdued almost all the lowlands, as far west as
Exeter and Shrewsbury and as far north as the Humber. Then came a
pause. The difficulties of the hill-country, the bravery of the hill-tribes,
political circumstances at Rome, combined not indeed to arrest but
seriously to impede advance. But the decade 70-80 saw the final
conquest of Wales and the first subjugation of northern England, and
in the years 80–84 Agricola was able to cross the Tyne and the
Cheviots and gradually advance into Perthshire. Much of the land
which he overran was but imperfectly subdued and the northern
part of it-everything, probably, north of the Tweed-was abandoned
when he was recalled (85). Thirty years later (115–120) an in-
surrection shook the whole Roman power in northern Britain, and
when Hadrian had restored order, he established the frontier along a
line from Tyne to Solway, which he fortified by forts and a continuous
wall (about 122–124). Fifteen or twenty years later, about A. D. 140,
his successor Pius, for reasons not properly recorded, made a fresh
>


## p. 369 (#399) ############################################

A. D. 85–211]
Roman Britain: Garrison
369
advance; he annexed Scotland up to the narrow isthmus between Forth
and Clyde and fortified that with a continuous wall, a series of forts
along it variously estimated at 12 or (more probably) at 18 or 20, and
some outposts along the natural route through the Gap of Stirling to
the north-east. This wall was not meant as a substitute for Hadrian's
Wall, but as a defence to the country north of it.
Rome had now reached her furthest permanent north. But the
advance was not long accepted quietly by the natives. Twenty years
after Pius had built his wall, a storm broke loose through all northern
Britain from Derbyshire to Cheviot or beyond (about 158-160). A
second storm followed 20 years later (about 183); the Wall of Pius
was then or soon after definitely lost, and disorder apparently continued
till the Emperor Septimius Severus came out in person (208–211)
and rebuilt the Wall of Hadrian to form, with a few outlying forts, the
Roman frontier. With this step ends the series of alternating organi-
sation and revolt which make up the external history of the earlier
Roman Britain. Henceforward the Wall was the boundary until the
coming of the barbarians who ended Roman rule in the island.
The force which garrisoned this fluctuating frontier and kept the
province quiet consisted of three (till A. D. 85, of four) legions and an
uncertain number of troops of the second grade, the so-called auxilia, in
all perhaps some 35–40,000 men, mostly heavy infantry. The three
legions were disposed in three fortresses, Isca Silărum (Caerleon on Usk,
legio ä Augusta), Deva (Chester, legio xx Valeria Victrix) and Eburācum
(York, legio vi Victrix): from these centres detachments (vexillationes)
were sent out to form expeditionary forces, to construct fortifications
and other military works and generally to meet important but occasional
needs. Outside these three main fortresses, the province was kept quiet and
safe by a network of small forts (castella), varying in size from two or three
to six or seven acres and garrisoned by auxiliary cohortes (infantry) or alae
(cavalry), some 500 and some 1000 strong. These forts were planted
along important roads and at strategic points, 10 or 15 or 20 miles apart.
Their distribution is noteworthy. In the lowlands there were none.
During the early years of the conquest we can, indeed, trace garrisons at
one or two places, such as Cirencester.
But, as the conquest advanced,
it was seen that the lowlands needed no force to ensure their peace, and
the troops were pushed on into the hills, beyond Severn and Trent.
Eighteen or twenty forts were dotted about Wales, though many of these
seem to have been abandoned in the course of the second century, as
having become superfluous through the growing pacification of the land.
A much larger number can be detected in Derbyshire, Lancashire, the
hill-country of Yorkshire and northwards as far as Cheviot: Hadrian's
Wall
, in particular, was principally defended by a series of such forts.
We cannot, however, give precise statistics of these forts until explora-
tion has advanced further : it is doubtful not only how far the known
:
C. MED), H. VOL. I. CH. XIII.
24


## p. 370 (#400) ############################################

370
Roman Britain: Garrison
4
examples provide us with a fairly full list of them, but, still more, to
what extent all the forts were in occupation at the same time and to
what extent one succeeded another.
The troops which garrisoned these military posts were Roman, in the
sense that they not only obeyed the Roman Emperor but were in theory
and to a great extent in practice, even in the later days of Roman
Britain, recruited within the Empire. The legionaries came from
Romanised districts in the Western Empire; the auxiliaries, naturally
less civilised to begin with but drilled into Roman ways and speech, were
largely drawn from the Rhine and its neighbourhood : some probably
were Kelts, like the native Britons, others (as their names on tombstones
and altars prove) were Teutonic in race. To what extent Britons were
enrolled to garrison Britain, is not very clear; certainly, the statement
that British recruits were always sent to the Continent (chiefly to
Germany), by way of precaution, seems on our present evidence to be
less sweepingly true than was formerly supposed.
From the standpoints alike of the ancient Roman statesman and
of the modern Roman historian the military posts and their garrisons
formed the dominant element in Britain. But they have left little
permanent mark on the civilisation and character of the island. The
ruins of their forts and fortresses are on our hill-sides. But, Roman as
they were, their garrisons did little to spread Roman culture here.
Outside their walls, each of them had a small or large settlement of
womenfolk, traders, perhaps also of time-expired soldiers wishful to end
their days where they had served. But hardly any of these settlements
grew up into towns. York may form an exception (see below): it is a
pure coincidence, due to causes far more recent than the Roman age,
that Newcastle, Manchester and Cardiff stand on sites once occupied by
Roman “auxiliary” forts. Nor do the garrisons appear to have greatly
affected the racial character of the Romano-British population. Even
in times of peace, the average annual discharge of time-expired men,
with
land-grants or bounties, cannot have greatly exceeded 1000, and, as we
have seen, times of peace were rare in Britain. Of these discharged
soldiers by no means all settled in Britain, and some of them may
have
been of Keltic or even of British birth. Whatever German or other
foreign elements passed into the population through the army, cannot
have been greater than that population could easily and naturally absorb
without being seriously affected by them. The true contribution which
the army made to Romano-British civilisation was that its upland forts
and fortresses formed a sheltering wall round the peaceful interior
regions.
Behind these formidable garrisons, kept safe from barbarian inroads
and in easy contact with the Roman Empire by short sea passages from
Rutupiae (Richborough, near Sandwich in Kent) to Boulogne or from
Colchester to the Rhine, stretched the lowlands of southern, midland


## p. 371 (#401) ############################################

A. D. 43–96] Roman Britain: History of Romanisation
371
and eastern Britain. Here Roman culture spread and something ap-
proximating to real Romanisation took place. The process began
probably before the Claudian invasion of 43. The native British
coinage of the south-eastern tribes and other indications suggest that, in
the 100 years between Julius Caesar and Claudius, Roman ways and
perhaps even Roman speech had found admission to the shores of Britain,
and this infiltration (as I have said) may have made easier the ultimate
conquest. After the conquest, the process continued in two ways. In
part it was definitely aided by the government which established here, as
in other provinces, municipalities peopled by Roman citizens, for the
most part discharged legionaries, and known as coloniae : these, however,
were comparatively few in Britain. Far greater was the automatic
movement. Italians focked to the newly opened regions—traders, as it
seems, rather than the labourers who form the emigrants from Italy
to-day: how numerous they were, we can hardly tell, but such commercial
emigrations are always more important commercially than for their mere
numbers. Certainly a far more notable movement was the automatic
acceptance of Roman civilisation by the British natives.
We can to some extent trace this movement. Quite early in the period
A. D. 43–80, the British town Verulamium, just outside St Albans in Hert-
fordshire, was judged to have become sufficiently Romanised to merit the
municipal status and title of municipium (practically equivalent to that
of the colonia manned by veteran soldiers). The great revolt of Boudicca
(less correctly called Boadicea) in A. D. 60 was directed not only against
the supremacy of Rome but also against the spread of Roman civilisation,
and one incident in it was the massacre of many thousands of " loyal”
natives along with actual Romans. Romanisation, it is plain, had been
spreading apace. Nor did this massacre check it for long. The Flavian
period (A. D. 70–96) saw in Britain, as indeed in other provinces, a serious
development of Roman culture and in particular of Roman town life, the
peculiar gift of Rome to her western provinces. In the decade A. D. 70-80,
the Britons began, as Tacitus tells us, to speak Latin and to use Latin
dress and the material fabric of Latin civilised life. Now towns sprang up,
such as Silchester (Calleva Atrebatum) and Caerwent (Venta Silurum),
laid out on the model approved by Roman town-planners, furnished with
public buildings (forum, basilica, etc. ) of Roman style, and filled with
houses which were Roman in their internal fittings (baths, hypocausts,
wall-paintings) if not in ground-plan. Now the baths of Bath (Aquae
Sulis) were equipped with civilised buildings suited to their new visitors:
the earliest datable monument there belongs to about 77. Two
coloniae also were planted. Hitherto there had only been one, established
by Claudius at Colchester (Camulodunum): now one was added at
Lincoln (Lindum) and in 96 a third at Gloucester (Glevum). A
new Civil Judge (legatus iuridicus) begins to make his appearance beside
the regular legatus Augusti pro praetore who was at once commander of
CH. XIII.
24--2


## p. 372 (#402) ############################################

372
Roman Britain: Civilisation
the troops and judge of the chief court and governor of the province,
and the appointment is doubtless due to increasing civil business in the
law courts. When Tacitus praises Agricola because he encouraged the
provincials to adopt Roman culture, he praises him for following the
tendency of his age, not for striking out any novel line of his own. It
is probable that by the end of the first century, Roman civilisation was
laying firm hold on all the British lowlands.
Subsequent progress was slower, or at least less showy. Little
advance was made beyond the lowlands. Towns and “ villas " were rare
west of the Severn, and save in the vale of York they were equally rare
north of the Trent. The uplands remained comparatively unaffected.
Their population, as recent excavations in Cumberland and in Anglesey
have shewn, used Roman objects and came to some extent within range
of Roman culture. But it seems impossible to speak of them as fully
civilised, even if, in the later years of the Roman occupation, they did not
remain wholly barbarian. In the lowlands we may ascribe to the second
and third centuries the development of the rural system and the building
of farmhouses and country residences constructed in Roman fashion.
is very
difficult to date these houses. But the evidence of coins seems to
shew that the end of the third and the first half of the fourth century
were the periods when they were most numerous and most fully occupied,
and when, as we may fairly argue, the countryside of Roman Britain was
most fully permeated with Roman culture. For such a conclusion we
shall have the support of a neighbouring parallel in Gaul.
The administration of the civilised part of Britain, while of course
subject to the governor of the whole province, was in effect entrusted to
the local authorities. Each Roman municipium and colonia ruled itself,
including a territory which might be as long and broad as a small
English county. Some districts probably belonged to the Imperial
Domains and were ruled by local agents of the Emperor ; such, probably,
were the lead-mining districts, as on Mendip or in Derbyshire or
Flintshire. The remainder of the country, by far its largest part, was
divided up, as before the Roman conquest, among the native cantons or
tribes, now organised in more or less Roman fashion : each tribe had its
council (ordo) and tribal magistrates and its capital where the tribal
council met. Thus, the tribe or canton of the Silures, the civitas
Silurum, as it learnt to call itself, had its capital at Venta Silurum,
Caerwent (between Chepstow and Newport); there its council met and
decreto ordinis, by decree of the council, measures were taken for the
government of the tribal area which probably covered much of Mon-
mouthshire and some of Glamorgan. This, we know by epigraphic
evidence, occurred at Caerwent and we shall not be rash in assuming,
on slighter evidence, that the same system obtained in other tribal areas
in Britain. It is just the system which Rome applied also to the local
government of Gaul north of the Cevennes : it illustrates well the Roman
1


## p. 373 (#403) ############################################

Roman Britain : Towns
373
method of entrusting local government to a restricted form of Home
Rule.
In the social fabric of Romano-British life, the two chief elements
were the town and the country house or “villa. ” Both are mainly Roman
“
importations. The Kelts do not appear to have reached any definite
urban life, either in Gaul or in Britain, before the coming of the
Romans, though they no doubt had, even in Britain, agglomerations
of houses which came near to being towns. But with the Roman
conquest a real town life arose. In part, this was directly created by
the government under the Roman forms of municipium and colonia,
noticed above. Colchester (Camulodunum), Lincoln (Lindum), Gloucester
(Glevum), York (Eburācum), were coloniae ; the first three were founded
in the first century by drafts of time-expired soldiers and the fourth,
York, probably grew out of the “civil settlement” on the west bank of
the Ouse which confronted the legionary fortress under the present
Cathedral and its precincts. One town Verulamium (St Albans) was
a municipium, ranking with the four coloniae in privilege and standing
but different (as explained above) in origin. All these five towns
attained considerable prosperity, and in particular Camulodunum,
Eburācum and Verulamium, but none can vie with the more splendid
municipalities of other provinces.
Besides them, Roman Britain could shew a larger number-some
ten or fifteen, according to the standard adopted-of country-towns
which varied much in size but possessed in their own way the essential
features of urban life. The chief of these seem to be the following:
(1) Isurium Brigantum, capital or chef-lieu of the Brigantes, now
Aldborough, some twelve miles N. W. of York and the most northerly
Romano-British town properly so called, (2) Ratae, capital of the
Coritani, now Leicester, (3) Viroconium—so best spelt, not Uriconium-
capital of the Cornovii, now Wroxeter, on the Severn, five miles below
Shrewsbury, (4) Corinium, capital of the Dobuni, now Cirencester,
(5) Venta Silurum, already mentioned, (6) Isca Dumnoniorum, capital
of the Dumnonii, now Exeter, (7) Durnovaria, capital of the Durotriges,
now Dorchester in Dorsetshire, (8) Venta Belgarum, capital of the
Belgae, now Winchester, (9) Calleva Atrebatum, capital of the Atrebates,
close to Silchester, (10) Durovernum Cantiacorum, capital of the Cantii,
now Canterbury, (11) Venta Icenorum, capital of the Iceni, now Caister
by Norwich, and perhaps—for the limits of the list are not easily drawn
with rigidity-Chesterford (Roman name unknown) in Essex, Kenchester
(Magna) in Herefordshire, Chesterton (Durobrivae ? ) on the Nen,
Rochester (also Durobrivae) in Kent, and even one or two which have
perhaps less right to inclusion. Many of these towns are indicated by
the Ravenna Geographer as holding some special rank and nearly all
are declared by their remains to be the sites of really Romanised town-
life. What exactly their status or government was, has yet to be
CH. XIII.


## p. 374 (#404) ############################################

374
Roman Britain: Towns
care.
1
defined.
But it is fairly probable—especially from the Caerwent
monument erected by the ordo civitatis Silurum—that the authorities
of town and tribe were one.
The general fashion of these towns has been revealed to us by
excavations at Silchester and Caerwent. At Silchester, the whole
100 acres within the walls have been systematically uncovered
during the last twenty years and the buildings studied with especial
At Caerwent, a smaller area (39 acres) has been excavated so
far as the buildings of the present village permit. Both shew much
the same features, with certain differences in detail which are both
natural and instructive: (i) Both have been planned according to the
Roman method, which obtained in many parts of the Empire : that is,
the streets run at right angles, so as to form a chessboard pattern with
square plots for the houses. At Silchester, where space was obviousl
abundant, the sanctity of the street frontages seems to have been in
general observed : at Caerwent, which is of smaller size and more thickly
crowded with buildings, the street plan has suffered some encroachments,
but not so much as to obliterate its character. (ii) Both towns had near
their centre the Town Buildings known as Forum and Basilica. At
Silchester the Forum was a rectangular plot of two acres, with streets
running along all its four sides. It contained a central open court,
nearly 140 feet square, surrounded on three sides by corridors or cloisters
with rooms-presumably shops and lounges-opening into them; on the
fourth side was a pillared hall, 270 x 58 feet in floor space, decorated
with Corinthian columns, marble lined walls, statues and the like, and
behind this hall a row of rooms which probably served as offices for the
town authorities and the like. The Caerwent Municipal Buildings were
very similar: so (as far as we can tell from imperfect finds) were those
at Cirencester and Wroxeter. They are indeed examples of a type
which was represented in most large towns of the western Empire and
in Italy itself. (iii) Both towns had in addition small temples in
different quarters within the walls and at Silchester a small building
close to the Forum is so similar in every detail to the early Christian
church of the western “ basilican " type, that we can hardly hesitate to
call it a church. (iv) Both towns, again, seem to have had Public Baths:
those at Silchester covered an area of 80 by 160 feet in their earliest
form and in later times were much extended. Both again had more
direct provision for amusements. At Silchester an earthen amphitheatre
stood outside the walls : at Caerwent there are traces of the stone walls
of one inside the ramparts. (v) Of dwelling-houses and shops and the
like both towns had naturally no lack. The private houses are built
like most of the private houses in the Keltic part of the Empire, in
fashions very dissimilar from anything at Pompeii or Rome, but are
fitted in Roman style with mosaics, hypocausts, painted wall-plaster
and the like. They are specially noteworthy as being properly “ country
9
a
:


## p. 375 (#405) ############################################

Roman Britain: Towns, Country Houses
375
houses,” brought together to form a town perforce, and not “ town
houses” such as could be used to compose regular rows or terraces or
streets. Even the architecture thus declares that the town life of these
cantonal chef-lieux, though real, was incomplete.
The civilisation of the towns appears to have been of the Roman
type. Not only do the buildings declare this: inscriptions, and, in par-
ticular, casual scratchings on tiles or pots which can often be assigned to
the lower classes, prove that Latin was both read and written and spoken
easily in Silchester and Caerwent. Whether Keltic was also known, is
uncertain : here evidence is totally lacking. But it may be observed
that if Keltic was understood, one would expect to meet it, quite as
much as Latin, on casual sgraffiti, while the total disappearance of
a native tongue can be paralleled from southern Gaul and southern Spain
and is not incredible in towns. Nor do the smaller objects found at
Silchester and Caerwent shew much survival of the Late Keltic art which
prevailed in Britain in the pre-Roman age and which certainly survived
here and there in the island. But while Romanised, these towns are not
large or rich. It has been calculated that Silchester did not contain
more than eighty houses of decent size, and the industries traceable there
-in particular, some dyers' furnaces—do not indicate wealth or capital.
The Romano-British towns, it seems, were assimilated to Rome. But
they were not powerful enough to carry their Roman culture through
a barbarian conquest or impose it on their conquerors.
From the town we pass to the country. This seems to have been
divided
up among estates commonly (though perhaps unscientifically)
styled “villas. ” Of the residences, etc. which formed the buildings of
these estates many examples survive. Some are as large and luxurious
as any Gaulish nobleman's residence on the other side of the Channel.
Others are small houses or even mere farms or cottages. It is difficult,
on our present evidence, to deduce from these houses the agrarian
system to which they belonged, save that it was plainly no mere slave
system. But it is clear from the character of the residences and the
remains in them that they represent the same Romanised civilisation as
the towns, while a few chance sgraffiti suggest that Latin was used in
some, at least, of them. A priori, it is not improbable that, while the
towns were Romanised, the countryside remained to some extent Keltic
or bilingual. But all that is certain as yet is that scanty evidence
proves some knowledge of Latin. These country houses were very
irregularly distributed over the island. In some districts they abounded
and included splendid mansions : such districts are north Kent, west
Sussex, parts of Hants, of Somerset, of Gloucestershire, of Lincolnshire.
Other districts, notably the midlands of Warwickshire or Buckingham-
shire, contained very few “ villas” and indeed, as it seems, very few
inhabitants at all. The Romans probably found these latter districts
thinly peopled and they left them in the same condition.
CH. XIII.


## p. 376 (#406) ############################################

376
Roman Britain: Villages, Roads
-
9
>
Besides country houses and farms, the countryside also contained
occasional villages or hamlets inhabited solely by peasants; such have
been excavated in Dorsetshire by the late General Pitt-Rivers. These
villages testify, in their degree, to the spread of Roman material civilisa-
tion. However little their inhabitants understood of the higher aspects
of Roman culture, the objects found in them-pottery, brooches, etc. -
are much the same as those of the Romanised towns and “ villas” and
are widely different from those of the Keltic villages, such as those
lately excavated near Glastonbury, which belong to the latest pre-Roman
age.
The province was, on the whole, well provided with roads, some of
them constructed for military purposes, some obviously connected with
the various towns: whether any of them follow lines laid out by the
Britons before A. D. 43 is more than doubtful. In describing them, we
must put aside all notion of the famous “ Four Great Roads” of Saxon
times. That category of four roads was a medieval invention, probably
dating from the eleventh or twelfth century antiquaries, and the names
of the roads composing it are Anglo-Saxon names, some of which the
inventors of the “Four Roads" plainly did not understand. If we
examine the Roman roads actually known to us, we discern in the
English lowlands four main groups of roads radiating from the natural
geographical centre, London, and a fifth group crossing England from
north-east to south-west. The first ran from the Kentish ports and
Canterbury through the populous north Kent to London. The second
took the traveller west by Staines (Pontes) to Silchester and thence by
various branching roads to Winchester, Dorchester, Exeter, to Bath, to
Gloucester and south Wales. A third, known to the English as Watling
street, crossed the Midlands by Verulam to Wall near Lichfield (Leto-
cetum), Wroxeter, Chester (Deva) and mid and north Wales: it also,
by a branch from High Cross (Venonae) gave access to Leicester and
Lincoln. A fourth, running north-east from London, led to Colchester
and Caister by Norwich and (as it seems) by a branch through Cambridge
to Lincoln. The fifth group, unconnected with London, comprises two
roads of importance. One, named “Fosse” by the English, ran from
Lincoln and Leicester by High Cross to Cirencester, Bath and Exeter.
Another, probably called Ryknield street by the English, ran from the
north through Sheffield and Derby and Birmingham (of which Derby
alone is a Roman site) to Cirencester and in a fashion duplicated the
Fosse. There were also other roads—such as Akeman street, which
crossed the southern Midlands from near St Albans by way of Alchester
(near Bicester) to Cirencester and Bath—which must be considered as
independent of the main scheme. But, judged by the places they served
and by the posts along them, the five groups above indicated seem the
really important roads of southern or non-military Roman Britain.
The road systems of Wales and of the north were military and can


## p. 377 (#407) ############################################

A. D. 286–296] Roman Britain : Roads, Sea Communications 377
best be understood from a map. In Wales, roads ran along the south
and north coasts to Carmarthen and Carnarvon, while a road (Sarn
Helen) along the west coast connected the two, and interior roads-
especially one up the Severn from Wroxeter and one down the Usk-
connected the forts which guarded the valleys: these roads, however,
need further exploration before they can be fully set out. In the north,
three main routes are visible. One, starting from the legionary fortress
at York, ran north, with various branches, to places on the lower Tyne,
Corbridge, Newcastle (Pons Aelius), Shields. Another, diverging at
Catterick Bridge from the first, ran over Stainmoor to the Eden valley
and the Roman Wall near Carlisle. A third, starting from the legionary
fortress at Chester (Deva) passed north to the Lake country and by
various ramifications served all that is now Cumberland, Westmorland
and west Northumberland. Several of these roads appear, as it were,
in duplicate leading from the same general starting-point to the same
general destination, and no doubt, if we knew enough, we should find
that one of the two routes in question belonged to an older or a later
age than the other.
Communications with the Continent seem to have been conducted
chiefly between the Kentish ports and those of the opposite Gaulish
littoral, and in particular between Rutupiae (Richborough, just north of
Sandwich) and Gessoriacum, otherwise called Bononia, now Boulogne.
There was also not infrequent intercourse between Colchester and the
Rhine estuary, to which we may ascribe various German products found
in Roman Colchester, though not elsewhere in Roman Britain. On
occasion men also reached or left the island by long sea passages. Troops,
it appears, were sometimes shipped direct from Fectio (Vechten, near
Utrecht), the port of the Rhine, to the mouth of the Tyne in North-
umberland, while traders now and then sailed direct from Gaul to Ireland
and to British ports on the Irish Channel. The police of the seas was
entrusted to a classis Britannica, which intermittent references in our
authorities shew to have existed from the middle of the first century
(that is from the original conquest or soon after) till at least the end of
the third century. Despite its title, the principal station of this fleet
was not in Britain but at Boulogne, and its work was the preservation of
order on either coast of the Straits of Dover,
This fleet appears to
have been a police flotilla rather than a naval force, but for once it
emerged into the political importance which fleets often assume. About
286 a Menapian (i. e. probably, Belgian) by name Carausius became com-
mandant, possibly with extended powers to cope with the increasing
piracy; he set himself up as colleague to the two reigning emperors,
Maximian and Diocletian, enlarged his fleet, allied himself with the sea-
robbers, and in 289 actually extorted some kind of recognition at Rome.
But in 293 he was murdered and his successor Allectus was crushed by
the Emperor Constantius Chlorus in 296. Carausius was apparently an
CH. XIII.


## p. 378 (#408) ############################################

378
Roman Britain
(A. D. 300-380
able man.
But in his aims he differed little from many other pretenders
to the throne whom the later third century produced : his object was
not an independent Britain but a share in the government of the
Empire. His special significance is that he shewed, for the first time in
history, how a fleet might detach Britain from its geographical connexion
with the north-western Continent. Twelve centuries passed before this
possibility was again realised.
The preceding paragraphs have described the main features of
Roman Britain, civil and military, during the main part of its existence.
In the fourth century, change was plainly imminent. Barbarian sailors,
Saxons and others, began, as we have seen, rather earlier than 300
to issue from the other shores of the German Ocean and to vex the
coasts of Gaul and probably also those of Britain. Carausius in 286
or 287 was sent to repress them. After his and his successor's deaths,
some change, the nature of which is not yet quite clear, was made
in the classis Britannica, and we now hear hardly anything more of it
.
A system of coast defence was established from the Wash to the Isle
of Wight. It consisted of some nine forts, each planted on a harbour
and garrisoned by a regiment of horse or foot.