The Claudian Invasion Campaign Reconsidered

Abstract

This paper attempts to build on Hind's hypothesis (1989) that the Roman invasion of AD 43 took place in Sussex, by examining the implications for the conquest campaign. It is suggested that the usual tactics of the Roman army and the size of the invading army are not consistent with the standard invasion campaign theory, in particular the events leading up to the so-called battle of the Medway. Other aspects of the evidence available to us are also inconsistent with the standard theory but can be explained in terms of a Sussex landing. The result is to offer further support for Hind's hypothesis.In a recent article J.G.F. Hind (1989) has challenged what has become the established version of events in AD 43 by arguing that the Plautian invasion force landed in the harbours behind the Isle of Wight, and avoided Kent altogether. Although this hypothesis has not yet been fully accepted it offers the opportunity to reconsider the Plautian conquest of southern Britain and perhaps make better sense of some of the anomalies, such as the rôle of the Dobunni, the curious absence of Caratacus and the early favouring of Verulamium. It also allows enough room for a very large Roman army to carry out the kind of campaign we should expect from it. 1 Hind has gathered and presented most of the available evidence (including a translation of Dio), and there is no need to repeat it here. Because of the need for very precise dating, archaeology can offer little help, although the increasing evidence for early Roman activity over the area between Fishbourne and Chichester is some support for the Hind hypothesis (e.g. Cunliffe 1998, 31). We remain largely reliant on the historical sources, and although they obviously include a degree of bias, especially towards the Flavian dynasty, there is no particular reason to suppose that the facts recorded are not presented more or less accurately, so far as was within the powers of the authors. The main source is of course the narrative of Cassius Dio, which seems to be a rapid but reasonably full summary in chronological order, based on earlier works which have not survived, presumably including the relevant part of Tacitus' Annals.

Claudius, Elephants and Britain: Making Sense of Cassius Dio 60.21.2

“…21. Similar views are expressed by Bird 2000, 102, with reference to the taking of Camulodunum: ‘The elephants … will have greatly added to the scene (surely their main purpose)’, although Bird earlier (100) does (wisely) use the caveat ‘supposedly’ with reference to the elephants; see also Levick 1978, 100; Barrett 1998, 575; Sauer 2002, 340; Peddie 2005, 87. Aldhouse-Green (2006, 42, 165) saw the elephants as reflecting, to the Britons, ‘Roman might and the huge, far-flung empire’, and added they were ‘paraded through Colchester’.…”

“…Sauer (2002 argues for a site 'on the south coast', somewhere between Dover and Southampton. For this view, see also Hind 1989, with Bird 2000 On Richborough as the main landing site chosen by Aulus Plautius, see Webster 1993, 95-6;Frere and Fulford 2001. The sort of vessel used for troop transport in such expeditions was equipped with both oars and sail, and was constructed according to Romano-Celtic tradition. According to Grainge (2005, 81-2), such ships could perhaps carry up to 150 men (Caesar's first expedition), or around 60-70 men (Caesar's second expedition, where the soldiers might have been more fully equipped), or 15 cavalrymen and their horses.…”

“…Sauer (2002, 358) argues for a site ‘on the south coast’, somewhere between Dover and Southampton. For this view, see also Hind 1989, with Bird 2000.…”

The Roman invasion of Britain (AD 43) in imperial perspective: a response to Frere and Fulford

“…The main matter of dispute in recent research on the Roman invasion of Britain is whether the invasion force landed in Kent (Frere and Fulford 2001) or at an unknown point between Dover and Southampton, but soon advancing to the central south coast (Hübner 1881, 520, 527-30;1890, 17-18), possibly near Chichester (Hind 1989;Bird 2000) or simultaneously in both areas (Black 2000;. There seems little point in repeating once more all the arguments in support of any one of these hypotheses in this increasingly entrenched academic dispute, or in providing a bibliography of relevant publications, especially since the recent works quoted in this article, notably the article by Professor Frere and Professor Fulford (2001) under discussion here, already provide references to relevant literature, and a book on the subject by John Manley (2002) is in print.…”