War in Britain: English Heritage

Aerial view of Portchester Castle demonstrating the impressive engineering of the fortress and its walls. Looking more medieval in style, it was occupied throughout the Middle Ages. The round bastions were platforms for rock and arrow-throwing artillery. [Skyscan Balloon Photography]

Maiden Castle is a massive hillfort enclosing some 47 acres of a saddle-backed hill, comprising several rings of giant earth ramparts and complex gateways. It was originally developed as a small settlement by Stone Age natives on one part of the hill. The Celts took it during the 6th century BC and then set to with their iron tools, doubling the size of the settlement. They added massive ramparts constructed out of earth dug from the hillside and redistributed over wooden braced structures to create a major fortification. Several such hillforts were constructed during the period of Celtic rule and reflect both their skills in warfare and their technical superiority.

The Celts did have one major military weakness, however. Gildas, a Celtic British chronicler of the 6th century AD, put it succinctly: ‘It has always been true of this people that we are weak in beating off the weapons of the outside enemy but strong in fighting amongst each other.’ Fierce tribal feuds sustained a rhythm of raid and counter-raid, creating tough soldiers but no sense of unity. When a major new force threatened from outside, the Celts were unable to work together in alliance. This crisis had already occurred in France in the 1st century BC when Julius Caesar led his Roman armies against the Gauls. Many Gallic tribes thought they could use the Romans against their Celtic rivals and happily fought alongside Caesar until it was too late. Caesar had divided and conquered the Celts of France and, by the 1st century AD, the Romans sought to do the same in Britain.

ROMAN ARMOUR

The sight of several thousand Roman soldiers all clad in armour, highly polished so that a myriad surfaces glinted in the sun, dazzling the viewer, must have sent a shiver down many a spine. Add to that the noise of several thousand pieces of armour and weapons clanging against each other as the Romans advanced, so loud that verbal commands could barely be heard, then one gets a little idea of how impressive the Roman army was in battle. And this at a time when barbarian enemies, such as the Celts or Germans, could boast only a handful of armoured warriors among them. Thus, the Romans possessed a superiority not only in the quantity and quality of arms and armour but also an unseen superiority of organisation and manufacture in which numerous armouries all over the empire could out-produce any barbarian force. It was to have a strategic effect similar to that of the Americans against the Germans in the Second World War, when the Germans might have possessed the better tanks, but the Americans could produce many more and thus overwhelmed them.

Re-enactors of the Roman Military Research Society recreate the ‘tortoise’, an attacking formation using shields to protect against arrows and stones as they approach an enemy fortification. Such formations were used to storm Celtic hillforts, such as Maiden Castle. [Roman Military Research Society]

Recreating the experience of fighting in Roman armour is almost impossible, according to Graham Sumner, a member of the award-winning Ermine Street Guard re-enactment group. ‘The noise is something we have recreated. Numerous legionaries marching in full armour create such a noise that we have concluded that visual and not verbal commands would have been used with musicians and standard bearers being used to convey these to ranks of soldiers virtually deafened by the sound of their own clashing arms and armour. The heat and exhaustion of moving in armour on a warm day is something we have also felt. But as for actual combat, there is so little we know. They appear to have been trained in gladiatorial forms of combat, but these seem inappropriate on the battlefield.’ It is also difficult to envisage how a front rank of legionaries would be replaced by their comrades behind them, once they became exhausted, without breaking formations and causing chaos. ‘Soldiers in other ranks would have thrown their spears over the swordsmen in front,’ says Sumner, ‘but beyond that it is difficult to guess.’ Perhaps fresher soldiers just pushed their way through the tightly packed ranks, as others fell back naturally, either wounded or tired. Certainly formations would have broken down in the scrum of hand to hand combat and become more fluid, allowing the stronger soldiers to continue the fighting as others faded.

Reconstructed Imperial helmet of the late 1st century AD showing the magnificent horsehair crest often fitted to the helmets of more senior soldiers. [Graham Sumner]

Back of Roman legionary wearing lorica segmentata armour. This view reveals the bronze hooks, hinges and leather ties used to secure the armour plates while maintaining their flexibility. Recreations such as this demonstrate how easy it was to wear this form of armour, its weight being evenly distributed over the body, although prolonged activity on a hot day produced problems with sweat which could rot the leather ties and loosen plates. [Graham Sumner]

The most famous Roman armour, seen in almost all reconstructions and visible on many remaining stone reliefs, is the lorica segmentata, strips of iron plates strapped around the arms and chest. It is a purely Roman invention and is thought, perhaps, to derive from the armour worn by gladiators in the arena, being particularly suited to protection against sword blows in close combat. Padding would have been worn under this armour to absorb the shock of a weapon’s impact on the armour. Such armour was worn from the 1st to 3rd centuries AD and would have been worn throughout the conquest of Britain.

Caesar’s warriors, in the first Roman expedition to Britain, wore shirts of mail, interlocking iron rings, which originated from the Celts they fought against. The difference was that Roman factories could equip every soldier with a mail shirt, whereas Celtic craftsmanship produced mail shirts only for the nobility who could afford it. Mail armour was very popular, modern reconstructions showing that a mail shirt follows the shape of the body and thus allows the wearer to take deeper breaths and wear it for longer without exhaustion than plate armour. It is also, essentially, self-cleaning, in that mail rings rub against each other, removing rust and dirt with friction. The main disadvantage of mail is that it is vulnerable to piercing weapons such as arrows; thick padding may have been worn beneath the mail to counter this.

Reconstructed Roman helmet of the Coolus type of the 1st century BC. Said to be inspired by Celtic helmets, it possesses both the cheekguards and neckguard incorporated in later designs. [Graham Sumner]

Because the Roman army has a justifiable reputation for order and discipline, it is presumed that Roman soldiers all wore the same armour and fought with the same weapons. Recent research reveals that this was not true. Mail and plate armour were worn side by side, as many soldiers inherited or bought armour from previous generations of soldiers. Many different nationalities served in the Roman imperial army and they frequently brought their own local styles of dress and fighting with them. This might include warriors in Egypt wearing armour made out of crocodile or hippopotamus hide, or warriors from the East wearing suits of scale armour that made them look like metallic pine-cones! Then there were the measures designed by individual warriors to protect their armour or make the work of campaigning a little less uncomfortable, such as leather rags wrapped around armour and helmets, linen or woollen tubes tied on to arms, even goose feather-filled cushions worn over saddles by cavalrymen. Sweat posed one of the greatest problems on campaign as it could rust armour in a day or disintegrate leather straps so that plates just fell off. This perhaps explains why Roman soldiers preferred to fight with bare legs, thus reducing the build-up of heat beneath their body armour.

Recreated Celtic battle group. With large oval painted wooden shields held in front of them, this group of Celtic warriors is on the verge of launching a terrifying charge which they hope will break the enemy’s spirit before contact is made. The Celts were renowned for this aggressive form of warfare, but if an enemy stood its ground, as the Romans did, secure in their discipline and training, then the combat would be much more difficult. [Philipp Elliot-Wright/English Heritage]

Recreated Roman legionary of the later 1st century AD. He wears the plate armour or lorica segmentata usually associated with Roman soldiers, as well as the rectangular shield. He carries both a sword and a javelin or pilum. His iron and bronze helmet is of the later Imperial type with cheekguards and a flared neckguard. The metal apron hanging from the belt is characteristic of Roman soldiers but its purpose is uncertain. It appears ornamental, although more substantial versions seem designed to protect the thighs without restricting movement. [Graham Sumner]

Vindolanda, near Hadrian’s Wall, was a military base for the Roman soldiers patrolling the great northern frontier. Many everyday objects have been found there, including leather shoes bearing the stamp of their maker. [Skyscan Balloon Photography]

Caesar led a major raid on Celtic Britain in 54 BC, but it was not until AD 43 that the Romans under the Emperor Claudius undertook an invasion of Britain that would lead to its absorption into the Roman Empire. The Romans of the 1st century AD not only had the political advantage of a divided enemy, but a superior military system. The Romans were equipped with iron weapons and armour too, much of it based on Celtic models. They were certainly no better horsemen than the Celts, many of whom in fact served with them as mercenaries, but the Romans had developed a winning form of warfare based on organisation and supply. The Romans took the long view in making war. The Celts expected to win or lose in one furious combat, charging on foot or on horse with frightening shouts and yells intended to panic the enemy. The Romans withstood this form of assault through discipline and confidence in their training and weapons; having survived the initial shock, they fought back steadily and surely. Their logistic infrastructure often ensured that they had superior numbers present for the later, decisive battles of a campaign. Celtic armies could not sustain themselves in the field for the same length of time. Moving forward each day into enemy territory, establishing fortified camps and supply routes, the Romans’ military professionalism brought an end to Celtic rule in Britain.

The Roman conquest of Britain began in AD 43 when 50,000 soldiers landed at Richborough in Kent under the command of Aulus Plautius. They defeated the local Celtic warlord Caractacus and crossed the Thames. The Emperor Claudius now joined the Roman Army, Caractacus was defeated for a second time and his capital at Colchester captured. Caractacus fled to Wales while the Romans extended their control over southern England. They measured their victories in captured hillforts, recognising these as the centres of Celtic power. The future Emperor Vespasian took command of operations westwards and the Roman historian Suetonius records that he ‘subjugated two fierce tribes and captured more than twenty hillforts, including the Isle of Wight’. Maiden Castle was one of these hillforts, excavations at the eastern entrance to the site reveal the debris of battle: charred timbers and demolished earthworks. The skeletons of 38 defenders are scarred with sword and arrow cuts, the spine of one warrior being pierced by a ballista bolt.

Massive earthwork walls of Maiden Castle, near Dorchester. One of the most impressive Celtic hilltop forts in Britain, it was captured by the Romans in the middle of the 1st century AD. [Skyscan]

The Romans were highly experienced in the art of siege warfare. The siege of a hillfort often began with the erection of a double line of fortifications surrounding the entire hill so as to cut off the defenders and prevent relief from outside. The Roman lines included palisades of freshly cut timber plus trenches and ramparts, a massive engineering task demanding vast amounts of labour. When the Romans considered the defenders were sufficiently weakened by hunger, they launched an attack on the weak points in the defences using artillery weapons, such as the ballista and catapult, as well as armoured Roman soldiers in their mail and iron strip armour, protecting themselves with large shields held above their heads.

By AD 49, the Romans had reached the Severn and plunged into Wales, forcing Caractacus to flee again, but a northern Celtic tribe, the Brigantes, handed Caractacus over to the Romans in return for an alliance with them against their Celtic enemies. Ten years later, the Romans destroyed the centre of the Druids on the Isle of Anglesey and marched northwards.

In AD 61 Roman rule was imperilled by a major rebellion that culminated in the sack of London and the massacre of its citizens. Boudicca, or Boadicea as she has been called in later history, was the widow of the Celtic king of the Iceni who ruled East Anglia. Roman tax-collectors ransacked the dead king’s realm and had Boudicca whipped when she protested; her daughters were raped. With the support of her own and other outraged Celtic tribesmen, Boudicca led a revolt against the Romans, taking advantage of the fact that Paullinus, the Roman Governor, had moved most of his troops to north Wales.

Roman Colchester was the first target of Boudicca’s fury and after a two day battle the settlement was annihilated and its inhabitants slaughtered. Paullinus moved south as fast as he could, but it was too late for the Roman inhabitants of London and St Albans who were put to the sword by Boudicca’s tribesmen. Paullinus finally confronted Boudicca near Lichfield. The Celts, typically, began the battle with a wild, howling charge, Boudicca mounted on a war chariot. The Roman historian Dio Cassius describes Boudicca as ‘very tall, most terrifying in appearance, a fierce eye and harsh voice. A great mass of the tawniest hair fell to her hips. Around her neck she wore a golden torc and over a multi-coloured tunic she wore a thick cloak secured with a brooch’. The Romans withstood the assault, flinging javelins at the Celts, then closing with their short stabbing swords. It was a battle of no clever manoeuvres, just sheer hard fighting, and the professional Roman soldiers prevailed. Boudicca, her army disintegrating before her, could see no way out and, according to the Roman historian Tacitus, committed suicide by taking poison.

Roman bath at Bath. The Romans were bewitched by the natural heated spring waters that bubbled up from the ground near the river Avon and built a massive bathing and religious complex around it. [English Heritage]

Boudicca’s revolt was the last great act of resistance by the British Celts towards the Roman conquest, but the defeat of the Celts was not a calamity for all Celtic people. Roman rule provided a degree of peace and stability that had been missing in the years of tribal conflict and this triggered a growth in prosperity. Meanwhile, so long as the Celtic chieftains paid their taxes to the Romans, they were allowed to continue in their positions of local power.

The Roman conquest of Britain came to a halt in the 2nd century AD. The Romans now ruled an empire that stretched from Wales to Syria and their thoughts turned to the preservation of the way of life they had established, rather than seeking new territory. Such concerns were in the mind of the Emperor Hadrian when he visited northern Britain in AD 122. A large timber building with fifty rooms, some decorated with painted walls, was erected for his stay (the remains of this have recently been uncovered at the Vindolanda site at Chesterholm) and the Augustan History captures the bold idea that caught his imagination: ‘Having reformed the army of the Rhine in regal manner, he set out for Britain where he put many things to rights and was the first to build a wall, eighty miles in length, by which barbarians and Romans should be divided.’ It has been suggested that the idea might even have come to Hadrian, who was a lover of the exotic, when he heard about the Great Wall in China. Certainly, there are architectural similarities between the two.

Close-up of the famous leather boots worn by the ordinary Roman legionary as he marched across Europe. Typical of the style worn in the 1st century AD, they feature hobnails on the soles to protect the leather. Three layers of tanned ox or cow hide were used to construct such boots, the tanning process itself taking two years. Egyptian records state that pairs of boots were issued three times a year to each soldier. [Graham Sumner]

A column of Roman soldiers advances through the British countryside. The presence of armoured, organised formations of Roman soldiers must have been an awesome sight for the native British, used to a more casual form of raiding warfare. These re-enactors belong to the Ermine Street Guard, the oldest and most highly respected of British living history groups recreating the life of Roman soldiers in Britain. [Philipp Elliot-Wright/English Heritage]

Work began on Hadrian’s Wall almost immediately, starting from a bridge over the river Tyne at Newcastle and stretching right across northern Britain to the village of Bowness on the Solway Firth. The first section, as far as the river Irthing, just over forty miles, was built of stone, but then the materials ran out and the rest of the thirty miles was completed with earth ramparts. Later, however, this was replaced with a stone wall. Ditches were dug on the northern side to add to the obstacle. At every Roman mile (1,481 metres), a little stone fort was built to house the garrisons of from eight to 64 soldiers that had to guard that section of the wall. Two look-out turrets were added at regular intervals in the space between the fortlets. As well as adding a further four miles of wall from Newcastle to Wallsend on the east coast, 16 major forts were built behind the frontier line, the largest being at Stanwix, near Carlisle, which could maintain some 9,000 men.

Roman tent and equipment of the late 1st century AD. Such tents were made of leather sections that were stitched so the seams overlapped and were thus waterproof. Each soldier carried a wooden stake which could be tied together with others, like those on the extreme left of the picture, to form sharp barriers which could be erected around the encampment every night. These re-enactors belong to the recreated Legio II Augusta. [Legio II Augusta]

Although an impressive work of military engineering that has survived in substantial sections over 2,000 years, the purpose of Hadrian’s Wall was less about preventing barbarians from entering Roman Britain than about regulating their access. In reality, it would have been impossible to defend the wall with the same intensity of force as a castle - a few soldiers in the middle of nowhere could do little to stop a determined breach of the wall - but the physical barrier meant that anyone who wished to cross the border had to pass through guarded gateways. Traders could be taxed on their goods.

ROMAN WEAPONS

The most famous Roman weapon is the gladius, a short straight double-edged blade with a long point, effective for both stabbing and slashing. Roman chroniclers declared that this style of weapon was derived from the Celts, but it has since become identified with the Roman soldier who used it in combination with his large rectangular shield (another Celtic influence). The average blade length of these swords was about 500 mm. Roman cavalrymen used a longer, slashing sword called the spatha. A purely Roman invention was the pilum, a throwing spear with a narrow iron neck attached to its wooden shaft. The thin iron neck would bend on impact, thus denying the enemy the chance of throwing the spear back and also, ideally, weighing down his shield, so he could not fight effectively with it and would have to throw it down.

Archery did not come naturally to the Romans and so they employed archers from their conquered territories, particularly from the East where there was a strong tradition of archery. The most widely used bow was a composite bow in which the wooden structure was strengthened by strips of sinew and bone, giving it greater elasticity and tension. Recent tests have shown how effective arrows were against armour, penetrating both mail and scale armour, but not iron plate. Surprisingly, wooden shields with a leather covering also proved highly effective, preventing a lethal penetration. A Roman soldier equipped with both lorica segmentata and a shield could be almost impervious to enemy archery.

Close-up of reconstruction of a beautifully decorated scabbard of a Roman sword based on an example found in the River Thames at Fulham. [Graham Sumner]

Reconstructed Roman mobile artillery piece. Such a weapon worked like a crossbow and launched a large bolt at the enemy. The crew are members of the Roman Military Research Society who recreate soldiers of Legio XIIII Gemina, one of the four legions originally involved in the invasion of Britain in AD 43, who also fought against Boudicca in the most dangerous Celtic revolt of the period. [Roman Military Research Society]

Excellent example of a reconstructed suit of Roman scale armour made out of hundreds of little bronze overlapping scales sewn onto a fabric tunic. This particular suit with a hood is inspired by a 3rd century AD fresco in the Middle East and is an indication of later styles of armour worn in Roman Britain. [Graham Sumner]

Field artillery appears to have been a Roman speciality. Whereas catapults and ballistae had been used by many armies at sieges, the Romans made lighter versions of these stone- and arrow-throwing weapons and placed them in front of their troops to let off frightening volleys before the main combat, just as European armies would use cannons centuries later. Modern reconstructions have shown how effective these weapons could be, hurling heavy bolts over long distances so that even if they did not impale an enemy they would skid and bounce on the ground, causing mayhem in enemy lines.

The rest of Roman Britain was controlled by a network of forts, each housing a legion or smaller Roman force. Typical of these was the Roman fort at Caerleon in south Wales near Newport. It was founded under the Emperor Vespasian whose legion, II Augusta, had played such an important part in capturing the Celtic hillforts of southern England. He wished to see the conquest of the Silures in Wales and ordered his general Sextus Julius Frontinus to execute the campaign. Frontinus needed a base near the Welsh coast so ships could bring supplies and men to his army and he chose a site on the river Usk. Initially, the rectangular fortress that was built around AD 75 was constructed of timber and earth ramparts with a wooden palisade above it, not too dissimilar to a Celtic hillfort, but as the campaign in Wales succeeded, a more long-term construction of stone walls with towers was built. It became the home of II Augusta whose over 5,000 soldiers occupied a complex including barracks, workshops, granaries, a hospital and baths. For entertainment, an amphitheatre was constructed outside the walls where the soldiers and locals could enjoy gladiatorial combats and other less bloody shows. Remains of the barracks, baths and walls can still be seen today, along with the amphitheatre, which in the Middle Ages gained the reputation of being the original Round Table of Arthur and his knights.

Section of Hadrian’s Wall near Cawfields. Although impressive in scale and construction, it was never intended purely as a military defence, but more as a way of regulating trade between north and south. [Skyscan/English Heritage]

Roman rule in Britain continued until the 4th century AD. For many Celtic and Roman landlords, life in Britain was better than it was in mainland Europe where, from France to the Balkans, invasions by German and Turkic tribes were becoming depressingy frequent. Britain was insulated from this chaos and a strong Romano-British army was able to counter attacks by barbarian raiders. German pirates posed a threat, but a series of castles was erected along the southern and eastern coast of England, creating a line of defence known as the Litus Saxonicum or Saxon Shore. The best preserved of these fortresses are at Pevensey and Portchester; their massive stone walls and tall towers look more like medieval castles. The Roman fort at Portchester near Portsmouth is almost a perfect rectangle with rounded bastions built into the walls which could mount bolt-throwing artillery to harass pirates.

Celtic warriors jeer and taunt their enemy. Insults hurled before a battle were an important way of testing an opponent’s morale and also strengthening one’s own courage. The recreated warrior on the left wears a shirt of mail plus a bronze helmet, while the warrior in the middle goes into battle stripped to the waist. Tattoos and body painting were popular among Celtic warriors. [Philipp Elliot-Wright/English Heritage]

Towards the end of the 4th century, barbarian tribes such as the Picts, Scots and Saxons began to act in alliance, or at least seem to have coordinated their attacks, menacing several parts of Roman Britain at the same time and stretching the defence forces to breaking point. In AD 410, Roman rule officially came to an end with a letter from the Emperor Honorius telling the Romano-Britains to look after themselves; Rome could no longer defend them as the great city itself had been sacked by the Visigoths. It was a blow to Roman administration in Britain, but there were too many local landlords who enjoyed the Roman style of life for it to change overnight. The change came slowly as Saxon raiders became settlers and a Germanic influence grew stronger among the ruling families.

If King Arthur existed in the late 5th century AD, which seems likely, then this is what his warriors would have looked like. Essentially late Roman in style, they have elements of arms and armour influenced by Germanic warriors at the time such as the Saxons. [Dan Shadrake]

SAXONS AND VIKINGS (#ulink_bddfe05f-a149-518d-8d18-be3893d4109b)

With the end of Roman rule in Britain, a number of Germanic and Scandinavian invaders fought for control of the island, including Saxons, Angles and Vikings. Their period of rule is often called the Dark Ages, but their literature and craftwork reveals tales of great heroes.

Saxons, Jutes, Angles, and Frisians, all from tribes in what is now the Netherlands or Denmark, crossed to late Roman Britain in increasing numbers. Some came for plunder, others to serve the Romano-British as mercenaries. It has been claimed that the Saxon conquest of Britain in the 5th century brought in a new era of ‘Britishness’, that the Romano-Celtic people were superseded by a Germanic nation, thus giving birth to the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ people. This was developed by some 19th century historians who favoured the idea of a Germanic base to British culture rather than a Celtic or Mediterranean one, perhaps because the British royal family happened to be of German origin. Such a vision is untrue.

The Saxon conquest of Britain in the 5th century took the form of a mercenary revolt in which a handful of Germanic warlords, Hengist being the most prominent, seized the estates of their Romano-British paymasters. Recent genetic research reveals that the majority of modern British people are of Celtic, not Germanic origin. The Saxon conquest of Britain was a struggle between a Saxon elite and a Romano-British elite. Nevertheless, the Saxon conquest was a war in which the most famous character of early British history figured prominently: Arthur. Despite the recent discovery of an ancient piece of slate bearing the name ‘Artognou’, all we really know about the King Arthur of legend is a list of twelve battles he fought throughout Britain. All the classic tales about Merlin, Guinevere, and Lancelot were composed by later medieval authors such as Sir Thomas Malory who wrote Le Morte D’Arthur in the 15th century. Around AD 460, there is record of a Romano-British warlord called Ambrosius Aurelianus who commanded a force of noble horsemen protecting their West Country and Welsh estates from Saxon raiders. Arthur was probably of a similar background and took over from Ambrosius when he died. Arthur was a Christian, described by the chronicler Nennius, as carrying ‘the image of the holy Mary, the Everlasting Virgin, on his shield’.

Armoured Saxon warrior of the 10th century. His sun wheel shield design is based on those seen in contemporary Saxon manuscripts. [Regia Anglorum]

The climax of Arthur’s campaign against the Saxons was the battle of Badon Hill. Nennius describes the hot water that bubbled up at the natural springs of Badon as one of the wonders of Britain and it is possible that this was the Roman settlement of Bath. The battle lasted three days and may well have been a siege of the town by Saxons. Arthur broke the stalemate by leading a cavalry charge against the Saxons, slaughtering many of them and stopping Saxon raids on the West Country for at least two decades.