The Roman Empire created the idea of mainland Britain as a unified geographical area. This excluded Ireland, which was never invaded, although Roman artifacts show that trade across the Irish Sea existed. The Romans perceived, governed, exploited, patronized, funded and manipulated Britain as a single entity. This is a critical psychological distinction between the periods before and after 43. It is only through Roman eyes that we have any detailed idea of political and social structure before and during the conquest period. Where the Romans were able to see a political structure that they could understand, they tended to perceive that structure as a tribal dynastic monarchy. The references to Cunobelinus of the Catuvellauni and his sons, Caratacus and Togodum-nus, and the fate of Prasutagus of the Iceni and his family, suggest that this notion was broadly accurate, at least in the south and east. The idea of‘dynasty’ should not be taken too literally, because if Caesar was correct about the native habit of sharing wives, it is unlikely that a kings sons were all by the same woman. It is also likely that the idea of‘son’ was a looser concept than ours. Even in the Roman Empire, adoption was already a well-established device for sustaining a paternalistic society and the transmission of property through a male heir.
Before 43, rulers in Britain won prestige by appropriating territory and other valuables from neighbouring tribal areas. By the first century AD, Roman patronage had become the most decisive factor in maximizing that prestige. It was a power-politics version of the normal Roman patron-client relationship, in which men of status surrounded themselves with associates who performed useful services in return for personal, practical and financial support. The relationship was two-way. rhe patron (in this case, the emperor) had obligations to his clients, just as the clients had to him. Client kings provided useful administrative and social buffers, helping to stabilize regions by exploiting existing hierarchies and loyalties. But the policy did not outlive the first century. There is plenty of evidence for the treatment of allied kings in the eastern half of the Empire and in North Africa. The Celtic dynastic coinage, with its explicit verbal and visual allusions to Roman titles and attributes, is the best evidence that a similar game was being played in Britain. The flight of Verica took place because he and his associates legitimately expected Roman military support as part of the patronage relationship.
74. South Cadbury (Somerset). Bronze plaque found in a guard chamber at the hillfort’s southwest gate. The realistic treatment of the hair shows considerable influence from the classical world. This conflation of styles became increasingly common in the years before the Roman conquest. Late Iron Age.
After the invasion, Roman control in Britain depended on maintaining structural continuity. WTierever possible, Claudius allowed approved tribal leaders to remain as client monarchs, providing they swore allegiance to Rome. Togidubnus is the prime example. We know nothing about his background, but with so much indirect evidence for the Roman policy of training and educating the sons of rulers of friendly frontier nations, it is likely that he was a son or relative of a tribe in central southern Britain, who had been educated in Rome prior to the invasion or shortly afterwards. Since Togidubnus is referred to on an inscription at Chichester, he was probably a member of the Atrebatic ruling house. There is more circumstantial evidence from Chichester, and also Silchester, for very early signs of Romanization and imperial patronage. A gold ring, found 200 m (656 ft) east of the Fishbourne palace, is inscribed with the name of Tiberius Claudius Catuarus (see p. 201).* ‘Catuarus* is a Celtic name, here belonging to a man made a Roman citizen under Claudius, as Togidubnus had been. The ring does not substantiate Togidubnus’ ownership of the palace, but it is evidence for the existence of a cabal of his associates, enfranchised along with their king by the Romans in return for their support.
Members of allied dynastic houses sometimes fought in the Roman army. The recent sensational discovery in southeast Leicestershire of a Roman silver cavalry helmet, hoarded together with over 3,000 Iron Age coins, may be evidence that part of an individual tribal warrior’s career was spent in the Roman army. Alternatively, it might instead have been a high-value gift from a Roman official, or even the emperor. Catuvellaun-ian coinage included a type depicting Cunobelinus wearing a Roman-type helmet. The hoard coins, mostly of the East Midlands Corieltauvi, date the deposit to the early first century ad. The helmet is unparalleled in Britain, but chain mail in some early first-century graves, for example at Folly Lane and Lexden, might also have had similar origins.
It has recently been suggested that allied British kings might even have been given auxiliary units detached from the Roman army specifically to support them. This includes the radical, and interesting, idea that the extremely early Roman fort at Gos-becks, near the Catuvellaunian stronghold at Colchester, could in fact have been a base for troops in the garrison of Cunobelinus.- Other instances of early Roman military-type installations or buildings, for example at Fishbourne, have also been normally attributed to 43 or afterwards. It is possible that some of these precede the invasion.
World History
