Britain: its maritime position, and limited extent of over-sea
trade—The vessels of the Ancient Britons, and the larger kind
used by the Veneti—Encouragement by law to construct superior
vessels—Britain and its inhabitants little known—Cæsar’s
reasons for invading Britain—First invasion, B.C. 55—Size of
his transports—Second invasion, B.C. 54—Cæsar’s preference for
small vessels—Violent storm, and great loss of ships—Final action
on the banks of the Thames—Cæsar makes terms with the Britons,
and re-embarks his legions—Advantages derived by the Britons
from their intercourse with the Romans—Conquest of Britain,
A.D. 43: its state of civilization—Speech of Caractacus—The
course of commerce with Rome—Inland water traffic—Transit
duties—Articles of commerce, and knowledge of manufactures and of
the arts—Colchester and its mint—London—Agricola, A.D. 78-85—His
fleet sails round Britain—The influence of the rule of Agricola
on the Britons—Hadrian, A.D. 120—State of commerce in and after
his reign—The Caledonian incursions—Piratical invasions of the
Germans—Carausius seizes the fleet of Maximian, and declares
himself Emperor of Britain—Welsh and Scots, A.D. 360—Saxons, A.D.
364—Their ships—State of the Britons when abandoned by the Romans.
[Sidenote: Britain:]
The successful career which has distinguished the Royal Navy of Great
Britain in her contests for many centuries on the ocean, and the
vast proportions to which her merchant shipping has extended during
the present generation, render the details of her incipient attempts
at navigation one of the most interesting portions of her domestic
history. Nor is the task to obtain these a difficult one. The early
annals of the ancient Britons, though very limited with regard to
their shipping and maritime commerce, have been so often thoroughly
investigated that little remains to be done beyond collecting
the leading facts which antiquarian industry has preserved, and
endeavouring to re-produce them in a manner as pleasing and instructive
as possible.
[Sidenote: its maritime position, and limited extent of over-sea trade.]
[Sidenote: The vessels of the ancient Britons, and the larger kind used
by the Veneti.]
Separated from the rest of Europe by a sea, which in winter is very
boisterous, and in summer often disturbed by currents and uncertain
winds; surrounded by a coast full of danger, and with the channels to
its principal havens interspersed with treacherous sand-banks, the
ancient Britons must have been an adventurous race to launch their
frail barks, for even a limited voyage, on waters so often disturbed by
storm and tempest. Their trade, moreover, during the early periods of
their history, was very inconsiderable, notwithstanding the convenient
situation of their island for carrying on an extensive commerce; and
the greater number of their vessels were of the rudest description.
Cæsar speaks of them as being, even in his time, of the slightest
construction, with the keels and ribs framed of some light wood and
covered with leather; and Lucan[406] says “they were constructed of
osiers, twisted and interwoven with each other, and then covered with
strong hides.” In such vessels as these the Britons worked their way
along their iron-bound and tempest-tossed shores, and frequently
made the passage to Ireland and the coasts of Gaul. From the fact,
however, that they carried on a trade, though limited, in their own
vessels with the Veneti on the coasts of Brittany, sometimes extending
their voyages to the river Garonne, it is a fair inference that they
possessed other vessels of a larger and stronger description, and
that they had learnt something of ship-building from the Veneti,
and, possibly, from the Phœnicians. But if it were true, as has been
asserted by more than one author, that when the Britons undertook a
voyage they abstained from food till it was completed, these voyages
must have been very short, indeed, not longer than to Gaul or Ireland.
[Sidenote: Encouragement by law to construct superior vessels.]
As has been already noticed, some almost circular boats, made of
wicker-work, are still in use in Wales, and may fairly be supposed to
represent a similar class of boats of much earlier times. On the other
hand, we know pretty well, from Cæsar’s description, the character
of the larger and stronger vessels of the Veneti.[407] Thus from him
we learn that they were built flatter than the Roman merchant ships,
for convenience in navigating shallow waters, and that having erect
stems and full bows, they were well adapted to resist the violence
of the waves in a storm; while he further admits that, as they were
constructed entirely of oak, they were not easily damaged by the
sharp iron beaks of the Roman galleys. Such vessels could hardly have
failed to attract the attention of the Britons, with whom the Veneti
long maintained friendly and commercial intercourse, while it is very
probable that, from them, the Britons learnt the art of constructing
ships of war. But though it is likely that their intercourse with the
Veneti may have had some advantages, it is, at the same time, probable
that there was no marked improvement in the form and construction
of the greater number of British merchant vessels till the Emperor
Claudius bestowed by law various privileges upon those persons who
built vessels of a superior class for trading purposes.[408] As these
privileges, however, only applied to ships capable of carrying ten
thousand Roman modii, or about three hundred and twelve quarters of
wheat, it is further evident that the framer of the law was desirous
of encouraging the building of a larger and better class of vessels
than then existed. But though a vessel capable of carrying only about
sixty tons weight is much less than the average size of the coasters
of the present century, little or no increase had apparently been made
in their dimensions even three hundred years afterwards; for the trade
in corn alone between Britain and the ports of Gaul required for its
conduct, in the reign of Julian, eight hundred vessels.
[Sidenote: Britain and its inhabitants little known.]
Although Britain had been for so many centuries more or less known to
the Phœnicians, the Carthaginians, and the neighbouring continental
tribes, it continued up to the time of the invasion of Julius Cæsar,
B.C., to be a _terra incognita_ to the rest of the ancient world;
the preservation of such ignorance having been no doubt a matter of
state policy with those who had some acquaintance with it, in order
that the monopoly of their trade might not be interfered with by any
interlopers. Hence, too, the stories sedulously spread of the barbarous
character of its inhabitants, of the naked bodies painted with colours
in imitation of beasts of prey, though Cæsar himself only says that
“they stained themselves blue with woad, and wore their hair long,
with moustachios.”
On the other hand, there is good reason for believing that the Britons
of the south and south-eastern parts of England were by no means the
barbarians some writers have asserted. It is certain that they were
of the same race, and nearly connected with the Belgæ of the opposite
continents, for Cæsar tells us that many names of cities in the two
countries were the same; that their manners greatly resembled those of
the Gauls;[409] that Divitiacus, a king of one of the Belgian tribes,
was also the ruler of a wide district in England,[410] much as in
later times our Edwards and Henries held large provinces of France;
that Cingetorix, though ruler of the Treviri on the Moselle, was also
a king in Kent;[411] and that the buildings of South Britain and Gaul
bore a great similarity one to the other.[412] More than this, we know
that the languages of the two countries, divided as they were from one
another only by the narrowest part of the English Channel, must have
been, as Tacitus[413] states, very similar—a fact partially supported
by Cæsar’s mission to England of Comius, the chief of the Atrebates
(Artois), that he might advocate the cause of the Romans in the British
language.[414]
We know further that the southern portions of England were then thickly
peopled, and that the Britons were in some respects so far in advance
of their neighbours that the Gauls used to send their sons to England
for the purpose of learning the sacred rites of the Druids, an order
of priests, be it remembered, who made use of Greek letters for both
their public and private transactions.[415] It is further clear,
from Cæsar’s narrative, that there must have been no inconsiderable
extent of land under cultivation, and therefore cleared, at least
partially, of forests, probably for the most part among the Cantii,
or men of Kent, whom he calls the “most polished;”[416] moreover, if
Cassivelaunus had only one-tenth of the “four thousand war chariots”
mentioned by Cæsar,[417] he must have required roads, and well-made
roads, too, along which to manœuvre them; not forgetting also the
fact, that the construction of such chariots implies considerable
mechanical skill. Cæsar adds, that the Britons made use of iron which
they obtained from their maritime districts, a statement confirmed by
the existence, till within a recent period, of numerous furnaces in the
Weald of Sussex, for the extraction of iron from the iron sand of that
district.[418] The extremely barbarous Britons, to whom the popular
stories refer, were no doubt those of the more northern and central
districts—Celts, who had been driven back by the advancing tide of the
Belgæ of Northern France.
[Sidenote: Cæsar’s reasons for invading Britain.]
The invasion by Cæsar was the result of various and mixed
circumstances, among which we may well believe one inducement to have
been the desire on his part of making his rule in Gaul pre-eminently
famous by the subjugation, under Roman rule, of an island about which
so many stories were current among his countrymen. Britain, described
in Virgil[419] as “beyond the limits of the known world,” was supposed
to be rich in gold and silver, with an ocean fertile in pearls;[420]
indeed, Suetonius speaks of it as a popular belief, that it was in
quest of pearls that Cæsar crossed the Channel. But a more probable
reason for his proposed attempt is that alleged by Napoleon III., viz.,
his having found the natives of Britain invariably aiding his enemies
in his Gallic wars, and especially in his conflict with the Veneti,
during the summer of the year of his first invasion, B.C. 55.[421]
Moreover, intestine divisions[422] had about that time broken out in
England, and hence there was then a better chance of Roman success than
there would have been had the islanders stood firmly together to resist
the invader.
Having resolved then to make the attempt, Cæsar looked about him
to procure information about the unknown island: but here he was
completely foiled; for the Gauls stood too well by their friends
and relations in Britain to volunteer the information they might
easily have given the Roman commander. The Veneti, as might have
been expected, did what they could to thwart him, while the Morini,
dwelling around and to the east of Boulogne, are specially mentioned
as friendly to the Britons.[423] Moreover, Cæsar himself remarks that
no one but merchants ever visited Britain,[424] unless, indeed, they
fled thither for their lives; Britain having been then, as now, the
refuge for continental exiles of all classes. In spite, however, of
these adverse circumstances, increased in some degree by the lateness
of the season, Cæsar judged it best to make the attempt, hoping,
probably, to strike an effective blow before the petty states in
Britain had had time to weld themselves into a compact body, although,
too, he had an almost certain prospect of an uprising in his rear of
the only half-subdued Gauls as soon as his legions were fully employed
in Britain. He therefore, as a last chance of procuring news about the
island, despatched one of his lieutenants, C. Volusenus, in a “long
ship” (_i.e._, light war-galley),[425] giving him orders, as soon as he
had made the necessary inquiries, to return to him with all possible
speed; a step which showed clearly what his intentions were, and led to
an embassy from the Britons, offering terms of submission he, perhaps,
disbelieved, at all events declined accepting.
[Sidenote: First invasion, B.C. 55.]
Cæsar soon after collected about eighty vessels of burden, placed in
them two legions, and, having made his final arrangements, started for
England from Boulogne at midnight on August 26, B.C. 55, having on
board a force of about eight thousand men. Eighteen other transports
conveyed about eight hundred horses for the cavalry.[426] Beyond the
number of the vessels, Cæsar has left us no information in regard
to them, and no indication of their capacity beyond the incidental
statement that two of the galleys, which on his return got adrift,
carried altogether three hundred men.
The number of men constituting a legion varied very much during the
different periods of Roman history, and, in Cæsar’s time, amounted
to about five thousand two hundred and eighty men, all told; but as
Cæsar obviously took with him as few troops as possible, intending his
first descent upon England to be rather a visit of observation than
a conquest, it is likely that the whole number of his force did not
exceed what we have stated, making for each of the eighty galleys a
complement of somewhere about one hundred men.
[Sidenote: Size of his transports.]
At present about three hundred passengers can be accommodated in a
sailing vessel of one thousand tons register on a distant voyage; but,
in coasting vessels, the number is very much greater.[427] It may
therefore be assumed that the average size of the vessels in which
Cæsar embarked his legions on this occasion was not more than one
hundred tons register. The horse transports[428] may have been somewhat
larger, as more than thirty-three horses, with their provender, water,
and attendants, could not well be conveyed in a vessel of less register
than one hundred tons, even on so short a voyage as from Boulogne to
Romney[429] or Lymne, performed, as this voyage was, with a fair wind,
in fifteen hours, or at the rate of about two miles an hour. The ships
of burden or transports were all flat-bottomed, that they might float
in shallow water, and be more expeditiously freighted.
Although the facts preserved with regard to the ships which Cæsar
employed on his first invasion are of the most meagre description,
they are sufficient to show that they drew comparatively little water,
or the men could not have “jumped” out of them, and made good their
footing on the beach with their standard and arms against the whole
British force: most likely, they were rather good stout-decked or
half-decked barges than the ordinary sea-going coasting vessel, which,
if one hundred tons burden, would draw, when laden, from seven to eight
feet of water. There is no record of the ports where these vessels were
constructed; but some of them, Cæsar tells us, had been employed by
him, earlier in the same year, in his war with the Veneti.
[Sidenote: Second invasion, B.C. 54.]
The vessels employed in Cæsar’s second invasion were somewhat similar
in form to those in the first; but his army on this occasion consisted
of five legions, with two thousand cavalry, for the transport of
which he had about six hundred boats; there were also twenty-eight
war-galleys.[430] If we appropriate one hundred vessels for the
transport of the two thousand horses, and from seventy to one hundred
for the transport of stores and munitions of war, and, if the number
conveyed was about twenty-seven thousand men, the rate would be
forty-five men to each vessel, so that the vessels on the second and
more important expedition were, on an average, only about one-half the
size of those which had been engaged on the first, and, like those,
consisted, probably, in great measure of undecked and flat-bottomed
boats or barges.
[Sidenote: Cæsar’s preference for small vessels.]
One of the reasons Cæsar assigns for the preference he gave in his
second expedition to small vessels was, that he had learned by his
experience of the frequent changes of the tide in the Channel that the
waves were not so violent as he had expected, and, therefore,[431] that
smaller boats were sufficient for his purpose; but this does not seem
to be a very satisfactory view. It is true that when wind and tide are
together the violence of the waves is modified materially; but when
they are opposed, their violence is greatly increased. We should rather
suppose that, in preferring open row boats to sailing vessels for his
second expedition, Cæsar had more especially in his mind the facility
with which they could be beached. One effect of Cæsar’s selection of
this large flotilla became, however, at once manifest in the terror
it caused to the Britons, who, instead of resisting his landing, fled
precipitately in all directions at the sight of so numerous a squadron,
and retired into the interior. The debarkation of the troops on the
second invasion was therefore effected without obstruction; and the
vessels, after having discharged their freights, were anchored in
Dungeness Bay. Finding that the British forces had retreated in the
direction of Canterbury, then, as now, the capital of Kent, Cæsar
determined on a rapid advance, most probably crossing the river Stour
at Wye, about twelve miles from Lymne, near to which, as before, he had
disembarked. Challock Wood, a considerable military post in the wars
between the kings of Kent and Sussex, is, with reasonable probability,
believed to have been the scene of the first encounter between
the British and Roman forces. In this battle, though on the whole
successful, it is clear that Cæsar had not much to plume himself upon;
moreover, it was followed by a great disaster, in a gale which wrecked
forty, and more or less disabled the whole of the vessels in which he
had crossed the Channel. But the Roman general was not dismayed; having
collected those least injured, he hauled them up on the shore, threw a
rampart around them to preserve them from the attacks of the Britons,
and leaving Labienus to collect fresh ships in Gaul, at once placed
himself at the head of his legions.[432]
[Sidenote: Violent storm and great loss of ships.]
The British force having, however, gathered strength in the interval,
now assumed a more threatening aspect; as Cassivelaunus, king of
Hertfordshire and Middlesex, having triumphed in the wars in which he
had been engaged at the time of Cæsar’s first invasion, now claimed
dominion over the whole of the south-east of England, and was,
therefore, able to oppose the new assault on Britain with a vast army,
aided, it is said, with no less than four thousand chariots.[433]
[Sidenote: Final action on the banks of the Thames.]
But though some of the encounters were at first of doubtful success,
the steady discipline of the Romans forced back the hosts of
Cassivelaunus, and Cæsar apparently followed his retreating forces,
first, in a north-westerly, and then in a direction due north, till
they arrived at the banks of the Thames, a little to the west of Walton
bridge. Here Cassivelaunus resolved to resist the further progress
of Cæsar,[434] but was defeated in a well contested action, which
rendered any further struggle against the Romans in that part, at
least, of England, hopeless.
[Sidenote: Cæsar makes terms with the Britons, and re-embarks his
legions.]
The legions of Cæsar had suffered so severely in this campaign, that he
was equally glad with the native princes to enter into negotiations for
peace; and, on the conclusion of these, he withdrew his army to Gaul,
in little more than two months after his disembarkation at Lymne. As
his homeward journey across the Channel lasted but eight hours, he must
have had the wind in his favour.
[Sidenote: Advantages derived by the Britons from their intercourse
with the Romans.]
When the magnitude of the preparations which Cæsar made for his second
expedition are considered, it can hardly be doubted that his intentions
were to subjugate the whole of Britain. Tacitus, however, in his life
of Agricola, confesses that Cæsar, in his two campaigns, only made
the discovery of Britain; that, though victorious, he was unable to
maintain his position;[435][436] that, on leaving the island, not a
single Roman was left behind him; and that, for nearly a hundred years
afterwards, the Britons were as free as ever, and paid no tribute to
the imperial city.[437] Yet the Romans and ancient Britons were alike
gainers by their mutual intercourse; for, from this period, their
commercial intercourse rapidly increased. The corn and cattle of the
Britons rose to a value hitherto unknown, while iron, and pearls of
an inferior description, were eagerly sought after by the Romans. A
new and vast field was opened up for their tin, lead, wool, and skins.
Their slaves,[438] and dogs, of a remarkable breed, were in great
demand; and were readily exchanged for the cut ivory, bridles, gold
chains, cups of amber, drinking glasses, and trinkets of various kinds
which the Romans exported. A considerable trade also arose between
the two countries in lime, marl, and chalk, and in the manufacture of
baskets, graceful in design, and curious in workmanship, for which the
Britons were famous.
[Sidenote: Conquest of Britain, A.D. 43.]
[Sidenote: Its state of civilization.]
Beyond these facts, however, nothing is known of what passed in Britain
between the time when Julius Cæsar left it, and the period when it
first became a Roman province under Claudius. When, however, the armies
of Claudius landed upon its soil, the Britons had advanced far beyond
the painted savages who first exchanged their tin for the trinkets of
Phœnicia; and although, in the remote portions of the island, there
were still to be found many barbarous tribes, the inhabitants of the
coast and of the commercial cities were then scarcely less civilized
than they were a thousand years afterwards at the period of the Norman
Conquest. London, or Londinium, is described by Tacitus as a place then
of considerable trade, though not dignified with the name of a colony,
and as the chief residence of the merchants. Clausentum[439] (old
Southampton), and Rutupi (Richborough) were commercial ports of some
importance, and were occupied by traders who dealt largely with those
of Gaul, and extended their business even to Rome itself.
Traders from the neighbouring coasts, but more especially from that
section of the Germans known by the name of Belgæ,[440] who centuries
before had settled on the opposite coast between the Rhine and the
Seine, were, in many cases, the intermediate dealers between the
Britons and the continental tribes. The whole country was then, as had
no doubt been the case for some time previous to the invasion, divided
into several small states presided over by chiefs, who are dignified
by historians with the title of king. Ptolemy, in his geography,[441]
mentions various towns in different parts of Britain of sufficient
importance in his time to be recorded, all tending to show that a
state of civilization then prevailed throughout the island, and that
barbarism and savage life were the exception rather than the rule.
Amongst the towns noticed by Ptolemy may be mentioned Isca Damnoniorum
(Exeter); Durnium (Dorchester); Venta Belgarum (Winchester), which
was a place of great fame in his time; Aquæ-solis (Bath), so called
from its hot waters; Ischalis, now Ilchester, and Guildford in Surrey
(Noviomagus). Numerous towns and seaports are also noticed by him, as,
for instance, in Kent, Rochester, Dover, and Lymne; and in the west
and north-west of England, Gleva (Gloucester); Deva (Chester); and
near it Uriconium (Wroxeter), the curious remains of which have been
quite recently explored;[442] Carlisle and Mona (Anglesey), the great
seat of the Druidical worship. In the interior of the country we may
record, as among the most famous of the Roman stations or colonies,
Eboracum (York); Lindum (Lincoln); Camalodunum (Colchester); Corinium,
(Cirencester); and Dorovernia (Canterbury); at or near all of which
places extensive Roman remains may still be seen.
The principality of Wales, formerly comprehending the whole country
beyond the Severn, was supposed by Tacitus[443] to have been originally
peopled by emigrants from Spain, and here too may be still traced the
vestiges of several Roman camps, as at Usk and Caerleon. At Stonehenge
and Abury, in Wiltshire, are still more ancient remains, monuments of
great interest, both for the size and the elegant disposition of the
stones of which they are formed; and which, at the same time, denote
considerable progress in the mechanical arts at a period antecedent,
perhaps, by centuries to the invasion of Cæsar.[444] Wherever we
go, we find that the Britons at the commencement of the Christian
era occupied a position, which, if far short of the high state of
civilization the Romans had reached, was greatly superior to that of
most of the northern nations of Europe, or to that of the Goths and
Vandals, when, three centuries afterwards, they overran the empire and
became masters of the imperial city.[445]
[Sidenote: Speech of Caractacus.]
Indeed, the famous speech of Caractacus, when taken captive to
Rome, shows a nobility of character, nay, we may add, an amount of
civilization that would not have been anticipated. “If I had made,”
said the noble Briton, “that prudent use of prosperity which my rank
and fortune enabled me to do, I might have come hither as your friend
rather than as your prisoner; nor would you have disdained the alliance
of a king descended from illustrious ancestors, and ruling over many
nations. My present condition, degrading as it is to me, reflects
glory on you. I once had horses, men, arms, and money; what wonder
is it if I was reluctant to part with them! Your object is to obtain
universal empire, and we must all be slaves! If I had submitted to you
without a blow, neither my own fortune nor your glory would have been
conspicuous, and all remembrances of me would have vanished when I had
received my punishment; but spare me my life, and I shall be a lasting
monument of your clemency.”
[Sidenote: The course of commerce with Rome.]
When the course of events is considered, it is not surprising that the
ancient Britons should have made less opposition to Claudius than they
had done ninety-seven years before to Julius Cæsar. They had learned in
the interval the advantages to be derived by intercourse with a much
more wealthy and more polished people than themselves. They saw that
not only the enlightenment of the mind accompanies civilization in its
progress, but that, as civilization increases, it creates wants which
require to be supplied, and luxuries which crave to be satisfied.
The routes taken by merchants and travellers continued for many
centuries much as they had been in the earliest times. Claudius,
however, when he left Rome for the seat of war in Britain, set sail
from the port of Ostia at the mouth of the Tiber, went by sea to
Massalia (Marseilles), and afterwards journeying, partly by land and
partly by the rivers till he reached the coast of Gaul on the English
Channel,[446] crossed over to Britain, and there joined “the forces
which awaited him near the Thames.” “There were then four ports,”
remarks Strabo,[447] “at which voyagers generally crossed from the
mainland to the island, at the mouths respectively of the river Rhône,
the Seine, the Loire, and the Garonne; but the travellers who crossed
from the country about the Rhine did not set sail from the mouth of
that river, preferring to pass through the Morini and to embark at its
port of Boulogne.”
[Sidenote: Inland water traffic.]
The ordinary traffic of those times was conveyed either on the backs
of mules or horses, across Gaul, as was the case with tin, or by the
rivers of that country: indeed, for a long period the merchant vessels
of Britain were not of a construction to brave the heavy gales and
stormy seas of the rude Atlantic, while Gaul was a country peculiarly
favoured in the conveniences it afforded for such an inland water
transit. Everywhere intersected by navigable rivers running in very
opposite directions, goods could be carried between the Mediterranean
and the English Channel, or the shores of the Atlantic, with little
assistance of land carriage. From Narbo, an ancient commercial port
of first-class importance already noticed, goods were carried a few
miles overland and re-shipped on the Garonne, which carried them to
Burdigala (Bordeaux). In the same way the Loire, the Seine, and the
Rhine afforded navigable facilities into the very heart of the country,
while all of them were easily connected with the Rhône or its great
navigable branches, thus completing the inland water-carriage between
the Mediterranean and the western and northern shores of Gaul.
[Sidenote: Transit duties.]
British goods destined for Rome, or for any port of the Mediterranean,
were chiefly conveyed by either of these inland routes, or across
country by the few highways or beaten tracks then in use.[448] In the
centre of this inland conveyance, at the junction of the Rhône with
the Saône (Arar), and within an easy distance of the other navigable
rivers flowing in the opposite direction, stood the great inland
emporium of Lyons (Lugdunum), a city then of much commercial importance
and second only to Narbo. This inland navigation, while of material
advantage to the inhabitants of the districts traversed, was, even
before the Roman conquest, a source of considerable emolument to the
proprietors of the lands adjacent to the rivers, as they were thus
able to levy a toll or transit duty on the boats passing through their
territories. These duties, we may presume from Strabo, were transferred
to the Roman coffers soon after Gaul became a Roman province, as he
distinctly asserts that (in his day at least) the duties on the imports
and exports of Britain constituted the only species of revenue derived
from Gaul by the Romans.[449] It is, moreover, not likely that the
government of Rome would permit its subjects to levy dues for their own
individual benefit.
[Sidenote: Articles of commerce, and knowledge of manufactures and of
the arts.]
“The commercial and friendly intercourse,” remarks Macpherson in his
Annals of Commerce,[450] “between the Britons and Gauls, which had
subsisted before the invasion of Julius Cæsar, still continued, and was
probably increased in consequence of the greater assortment of goods
now in the hands of the Romanized Gallic merchants.” Tin, which was
still the chief article of British commerce, after being cast into
cubic masses, remained, and long continued, the general staple of the
British trade. “But besides it,” continues the same author, “there was
then exported to Gaul, either for sale in that country, or for further
transit, lead, corn, cattle, hides, under the description of which,
perhaps, wool is included; gold, silver, iron, ornaments for bridles,
and various toys made of a substance which the Romans called ivory,
but more probably the bone of some large fish; ornamental chains,
vessels made of amber and of glass, with some other trifling articles;
also precious stones and pearls; slaves, who were captives taken in
the wars carried on by the tribes against each other; dogs of various
species, all excellent in their kinds, which were highly valued by the
Roman connoisseurs in hunting, and by the Gauls, who used them not only
against wild animals in the chase, but also against their enemies in
the field of battle; and bears for the sanguinary sport of the Roman
circus, though probably not so early as the age of Augustus.”
Brass, brazen vessels, salt, and earthenware, were then, with the
lighter articles and trinkets previously named, the chief articles of
import from Gaul into Britain. Though chiefly occupied in pastoral
and agricultural pursuits, the ancient Britons, from the character of
their exports, evidently understood, not merely the arts of extracting
tin and lead and even gold silver and iron from their mines, but were
skilled in the manufacture of objects in glass and amber, and also in
some works purely ornamental, as well as in the conversion of iron
to many useful purposes. Skins were no doubt still used as articles
of dress by many of the less civilized inhabitants who resided in
the remote parts of the island; but those Britons who occupied the
frequented parts of the coast, or the chief towns, were, from the
observations of Cæsar, clothed in better and more comfortable garments,
very likely in woollen cloths. As manufactures in wool were among
the earliest arts which first brought England into notice as a great
commercial nation many centuries afterwards, it is reasonable to
suppose that woollen fabrics may, even in early times, have been part
of the staple of the country.
[Sidenote: Colchester, and its mint.]
Colchester, the principal city of eastern Britain, was made by
Claudius,[451] at the commencement of the Christian era, as appears
from his coins, a Roman colony. Here Cunobeline, king of the countries
lying between the Thames and the Nen, established a mint, of which
as many as sixty varieties have been engraved by Mr. Evans.[452] No
descriptive account of this ancient town has been preserved, but
it is reasonable to suppose that, as the capital in which the king
resided, it was better built than the “fenced collection of huts” Cæsar
describes.
[Sidenote: London.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 61.]
Some doubts have been expressed as to the very early antiquity
of London; and, on the whole, it is most likely that it was not
till Claudius had appointed Plautius to the supreme command of the
island, that the Romans directed their attention to London,[453]
and established it as the chief commercial centre for the arts and
manufactures of Kent and of the valley of the Thames, over which river,
if the testimony of Dio can be relied on, the Britons had already
constructed a bridge somewhere near the site of the lowest of the
existing structures. Ten years afterwards, in the reign of Nero, we
hear of the now famous city, the greatest and wealthiest the world
has ever seen, having become the residence of a great number of such
dealers as the Romans dignified with the title of merchants, and
between whom and the small traders of Rome, Cicero drew, as we have
already noticed, so marked and so supercilious a distinction.
[Sidenote: Agricola, A.D. 78-85.]
It is not the province of this work to follow in detail the course of
Roman conquest. It is sufficient to state that the Romans only gained
their footing in Britain by slow degrees, and that the legions which
had conquered other countries almost as soon as they marched into them,
had to encounter many a sturdy foe, and to achieve many a hard-earned
victory, ere they obtained full control over a people, who, though
fully alive to the advantages of a commercial intercourse with Rome,
cherished a love of independence unsurpassed by any other nation of
antiquity. Indeed, it was not until the governorship of Agricola
that Britain could in any sense be called a Roman province; and that
Agricola succeeded where other generals, such as Plautius and Ostorius
Scapula, had failed, is mainly attributable to the care and gentleness
of his administration, and to his obvious desire to make the chains he
had forged for the British as agreeable as possible to them. Agricola
was the first Roman general who had penetrated into Scotland; he was
also the first to sail round the whole country, an undertaking then of
no ordinary danger, especially at the advanced season of the year when
it was performed. It is a striking remark of Tacitus that the harbours
of Ireland, which one or two centuries before had been visited by the
Gauls, and perhaps at a still earlier period by the Carthaginians, were
then better known to continental merchants by means of their commerce
than to those of Britain.
[Sidenote: His fleet sails round Britain.]
[Sidenote: The influence of the rule of Agricola on the Britons.]
Altogether the rule of Agricola proved as remarkable as it was
certainly at variance with the usual habits and practices of Roman
proconsuls. When once he had laid down the sword, he encouraged a taste
among the Britons for the pleasures of civilized life; first exhorting,
then assisting them to build temples and places of public resort, and
commending and rewarding those who were assiduous and forward in such
pursuits: in this way he hoped to subdue their restless spirit, and to
give scope to their excitement in other pursuits than those of war.
He also took care to have the sons of their chiefs instructed in the
liberal sciences, inducing many of them to study the Roman language,
which they had previously despised, to copy the manners and customs
of Rome, and even to adopt the costume of its citizens. Nor were his
efforts confined to the improvement and amelioration of their social
position. He had learned, from the conduct of those who had preceded
him in the government of Britain, how little arms avail to settle a
province, if victory is followed by grievances and oppressions; he
therefore displayed his superior wisdom by removing every just cause
for complaint. Beginning with himself, and with those around him, he
regulated his own household, so that in its conduct it might be an
example for others to follow; his domestics, according to Tacitus,[454]
were not allowed to transact any business concerning the public; and,
in promoting or rewarding the soldiers, he was induced to do so by
no personal interest or partiality, nor by the recommendations of
centurions, but by his own opinion and knowledge of them. By such means
as these Agricola, by degrees, reconciled the Britons to the government
of Rome; and, though their love of independence was never actually
subdued, they were content to live, if unopposed, in peace, and in
friendly intercourse with the invaders of their soil. Caledonia alone
kept up an angry hostility to the yoke of Rome, and seized, on the
departure of Agricola, the castles and forts he had raised in various
parts of Scotland.
[Sidenote: Hadrian, A.D. 120.]
[Sidenote: State of commerce in and after his reign.]
During the thirty-five years which elapsed after the recall of
Agricola, until the reign of the Emperor Hadrian, the Roman historians,
from whom alone we derive our information, hardly deign to notice
the island; while, as is well known, no native records, or even what
might perhaps have been a copy of a native record, have come down to
us: indeed, it may be seriously doubted whether letters were at all
generally known beyond the schools of the Druids. There is, however,
every reason to suppose that the Britons pursued with persevering
industry those commercial occupations we have already named; that the
advice and example of Agricola had not been given in vain, or neglected
on his departure; and, that, long ere that time, trade and commerce
must have taken deep root in the island, as the city of London had
even then given tokens of its aptitude to become the mercantile capital
of the world.[455] The pearl fisheries, abandoned afterwards from
the inherent defects of British pearls, were developed to an extent
hitherto unknown; and a trade was opened out in oysters, which were
actually conveyed, probably by one of the overland routes, to Rome, to
satisfy the cravings of the epicures of the imperial city. Indeed, they
were in such demand as to form a subject for the poet’s satire.
“Could at one bite the oyster’s taste decide,
And say if at Circæan rocks, or in
The Lucrine lake, or on the coasts of Richborough,
In Britain, they were bred.”[456]
Another extensive trade, the manufacture of baskets, is casually
mentioned, in the same strain of wit, by another Roman poet in the
following lines:—
“Work of barbaric art, a basket, _I_
From painted Britain came, but the Roman city
Now call the painted Britons’ art their own.”[457]
[Sidenote: The Caledonian incursions.]
We also learn, incidentally,[458] that the people of the northern part
of Scotland, although the shores swarmed with fish, did not eat them,
but subsisted entirely by hunting and on the fruits of the earth.
Not satisfied with the possession of the forts Agricola had erected
for the protection of the Britons against the Caledonians, the Emperor
Hadrian, who visited the island in person, finding that they had
extended their warlike and predatory excursions to the south of the
Tyne, was compelled to drive them back to their mountain fastnesses by
the superior force of fresh legions. Alarmed, however, by their daring
and intrepidity, or not considering it worth while to follow them north
of that river, he caused the wall to be built which still bears his
name, from the Eden in Cumberland to the Tyne in Northumberland, to
restrain them from again making incursions into the Roman province.
Hadrian’s rampart, however, was soon breached, for seventy miles of
wall required more soldiers to protect it than the Romans could spare,
and though subsequent walls were built at different times, all of these
proved equally ineffective in repressing the advances of the Picts:
till, at length, Severus was compelled to purchase a peace by money
which his arms had failed to secure.[459]
[Sidenote: Piratical invasions of the Germans.]
[Sidenote: Carausius seizes the fleet of Maximian, and declares himself
Emperor of Britain.]
But Rome had innumerable difficulties to contend against in the
government of Britain beyond the inroads of the Caledonians, who
had ever spurned and resisted her rule. The Franks and other German
nations had for some time invaded the coasts adjacent to them with
piratical incursions, and had reaped a rich harvest from the plunder
of the sea-coast towns and of the vessels of the traders employed
between Britain and Gaul. In order to repress these sea-robbers, the
Emperor Maximian built a fleet of ships, the command of which he gave
to Carausius, an officer of great experience in naval and military
affairs, to whose history we have already alluded. Though a traitor
to the government he professed to serve, and possessing himself no
claims to the allegiance of the Britons, there is no doubt that the
island prospered under his brief rule, and for the first time was able
to claim the proud title of mistress of the northern seas, a title,
however, she soon lost, and only regained after tremendous struggles,
twelve centuries afterwards. Britain, during the seven years’ reign
of Carausius, seems to have possessed more wealth and prosperity
than during any similar period of Roman rule, while the flourishing
state of the arts at that period of her history is shown by the
number and elegance of his coins, three hundred varieties of which,
in gold, silver, or copper, are now preserved in different numismatic
collections.
But though Britain may have flourished in material prosperity under
Carausius, no Roman emperor could have allowed his rebellious acts to
remain unchastised, and hence, after a long preparation, Constantius
was sent to England with a powerful force, and in a short space
of time restored the imperial sway; not the less easily, perhaps,
that Carausius had in the meanwhile been murdered by his lieutenant
Allectus. No mention is made of the number of ships or troops
constituting the expedition of Constantius, but it must have been on
an extensive scale, as it captured in its first attempt the port of
Boulogne, with part of the British fleet.[460]
[Sidenote: Welsh and Scots, A.D. 360.]
[Sidenote: Saxons, A.D. 364.]
[Sidenote: Their ships.]
Nor do historians afford much information with regard to the affairs
of Britain from the death of Constantius, father of Constantine the
Great, until more than fifty years afterwards, when its Roman subjects
were seriously harassed by the Welsh on the west, and the Caledonians
on the north, who ravaged the frontiers and spread terror throughout
the now civilized provinces of Britannia Romana. Nor was this all:
while harassed by the descendants of the Celts, the Germanic Saxons
invaded England on the east and south, startling the Romans and their
subjects by the daring intrepidity with which they skimmed over the
roughest seas in “boats of leather,” and, without respect of persons
or property, plundered and carried off everything worthy of removal.
Besides these frail craft the Saxons, however, possessed more than one
description of vessel altogether superior to their leather-covered
boats, called by the old historians in Latin, _Kiulæ_; in Saxon,
_Ceol_, or _Ciol_; and in English, _Keels_.[461] Some writers also
maintain that they had strong open boats adapted to warfare at sea.
That these German rovers possessed larger vessels than even their
war-galleys is ascertained by the fact that, within seventy or
eighty years after they first gained a secure footing in Britain,
they received a reinforcement of “five thousand men, in seventeen
ships,”[462] or at the rate of about three hundred men to a ship,
besides provisions, stores, and munitions of war. But of their form,
size, or equipment no accounts have been preserved, and it can,
therefore, tend to no useful purpose to attempt, as Mr. Strutt has
done, the reproduction of the supposed types of the vessels of Canute,
as all such drawings are only the creations of fancy.
It may be reasonable, however, to infer that the better class of
Saxon vessels were copies of the Roman or British galleys, used by
Carausius or Constantius, possibly with some addition, such as higher
bulwarks, fitting them the better to resist the stormy and pitching
sea of the German Ocean. However slow the progress of improvement may
have been among a body of merchants and shipowners, whose property was
perpetually exposed to depredation and destruction, there can be no
doubt that the princes of those days in Britain and throughout northern
Europe availed themselves of all the resources of the time to display
their maritime consequence and power to the best advantage. It can,
indeed, be hardly questioned that the long and comparatively peaceful
intercourse between the seamen of the north and the south must have
familiarized the Vikings with such improvements in the construction
of shipping as had been worked out by the nations bordering on the
Mediterranean; and though, for short and hasty expeditions, the
Northmen or the Saxons may have been willing to trust themselves to
small or ill-constructed open boats, there is no reason to suppose this
would be the case, either when they had heavy and bulky merchandise,
or their best and bravest warriors, to convey in safety on long and
perilous voyages.
On the invasion of the Celts and of the Teutonic tribes, the
inhabitants of Britain were unable to make an adequate defence. Unlike
their hardy forefathers, who had needed no aid but their own good
right hands, they had become accustomed to look for protection to
their Roman masters, and to delegate to others what they ought to have
achieved themselves. Nor were the northern tribes their only foes.
Besides their new invaders, they had to contend with gangs of Roman
soldiers, who, cheated of their pay by their officers, infested the
highways as robbers, and extorted provisions from the natives.[463]
[Sidenote: State of the Britons when abandoned by the Romans.]
It might have been supposed that the Britons, improved in learning,
in agriculture, in manufactures, and in the arts and sciences by
four centuries of Roman instruction, would have become a great and
flourishing people. They had, indeed, natural advantages superior to
all their rivals, in the possession of some of the finest harbours in
the world, of minerals, and of a soil as fruitful, if not more so than
that of any of the countries around them. But while Rome had raised
the Britons in the social scale, and imparted to them knowledge of the
highest value for the development of their vast natural resources, she
had, especially towards the close of her career, greatly weakened them,
by the heavy drafts of their best sons for employment in local wars,
or to be posted far away as garrisons in distant provinces. It is,
therefore, probable that Rome left our forefathers comparatively poorer
and, assuredly, in a weaker condition than they were when she usurped
the government of their island.
Of the origin of the Saxons, whose aid the Britons are said to have
sought after the departure of the Romans, nothing is distinctly known,
except that they had, for some time previously, made themselves masters
of the territory lying between the Elbe and the Rhine, pushing forwards
their conquests or occupation of the country as far as the coasts of
Zealand, part of the present kingdom of Holland. Their occupation of
England was probably exceedingly gradual, the south and east having
been early peopled with these strangers, so that the so-called Saxon
conquest was really, therefore, rather the slow result of their
increasing numbers than of such a development of military or naval
genius as is seen in the later inroads of the Danes or of William the
Norman.
FOOTNOTES:
[406] Lucan, Phars. iv. cf. Fest. Avienus, “Ora Maritima,” v. 80-130,
and Plin. iv. c. 16.
[407] Cæsar describes the ships of the Veneti, B. G. iii. 13.
[408] Sueton. Claud. c. 18. Cod. Theodos. v. 13, 5.
[409] Cæs. Bell. Gall. v. 12, 14.
[410] Ibid. ii. 4.
[411] Ibid. v. 22.
[412] Ibid. v. 12.
[413] Tacit. Agric. c. ii.
[414] Cæs. Bell. Gall. iv. 19.
[415] Cæs. Bell. Gall. vi. 13, 14.
[416] Ibid. v. 10.
[417] Ibid. v. 15.
[418] Sussex was the chief seat of the iron manufacture of England till
coal became abundant. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth seventy-three
furnaces are said to have been at work, and the last, at Ashburnham,
was only blown out in 1827. The railings round St. Paul’s Cathedral
(temp. Queen Anne) are made of Sussex iron.
[419] Virgil, Eclog. i. 67.
[420] Tacit. Agric. Sueton. Cæs. c. 46, 47.
[421] Cæs. Bell. Gall. iv. 18.
[422] Ibid. v. 16.
[423] Dio. xxxix. 51.
[424] Cæs. Bell. Gall. iv. 18.
[425] Cæs. Bell. Gall. iv. c. 21.
[426] It would be out of place here to discuss the vexed question of
the places, respectively, whence Cæsar started from France, and where
he landed in England. We can only say that, having read the several
memoirs on this subject, by Halley, d’Anville, Dr. Guest, Master of
Caius Coll., Cambr., the Astronomer Royal, and Mr. Lewin, we are
inclined to think that the essay by the last-named writer (London,
1859) is the most consistent with the language of Cæsar himself. In the
following pages, therefore, his views have been generally adopted.
[427] By the Passengers Act, which applies to all British possessions,
except India and Hong Kong, the space allowed in passenger ships to
each statute adult is not to be less than 15 clear superficial feet
in the poop or in the upper passenger-deck, nor less than 18 clear
superficial feet on the lower passenger-deck; and the height between
decks is not to be less than 6 feet for the upper passenger-deck, nor
less than 7 feet for the lower passenger-deck. Each person of twelve
years and upwards, and two children between one and twelve years, count
as an adult.
By the 16 and 17 Vict. cap. 84, however, the governors of colonies may,
by proclamation, reduce this space to 12 superficial feet in the case
of passengers, _being natives of Asia and Africa_, sailing from their
governments.
[428] Cæs. B. G. iv. 32, 33.
[429] It seems a reasonable conjecture that in the name of Romney
(_i.e._, Roman marsh or island) we have a relic of Cæsar’s invasion.
[430] Cæs. B. G. v. 2.
[431] Cæs. B. G. v. 1.
[432] The “Invasion of Britain by Julius Cæsar,” by Thomas Lewin, Esq.,
M.A., 1859.
[433] Cæs. B. G. v. 19; and Roach Smith’s “Antiquities of Richborough,
Reculver, and Lymne. Lond. 1850.”
[434] It is generally supposed that Cassivelaunus, in execution of a
well concerted plan, retired, followed by Cæsar, from the banks of
the Stour along the southern side of the chalk hills running from Wye
to Dorking, and then down the right bank of the Mole to the nearest
point of the Thames at “Coway stakes,” situated between Walton and
Shepperton. In the year 1855, the author of this work purchased the
principal property in the latter parish, and a few years afterwards
that of Halliford, so named from the ford at Coway, where the Romans
are supposed to have crossed the Thames. Since then he has resided
almost constantly in the Manor-house of Shepperton, which, on the
authority of Stukeley and of other antiquaries, occupies the site where
Cæsar pitched his camp after the final defeat of the ancient Britons.
The paddock, about fourteen acres in extent, attached to his house,
is said to have derived its name from the fact that there the battle
between the Romans and Britons raged in its greatest fury, and that
there it ended, with great carnage, in the overthrow of Cassivelaunus.
In the recent Ordnance maps, as well as in some maps of an ancient
date, this paddock is described as “War-close field, from which there
has been dug spears, swords, and great quantities of human bones.”
Cæsar in his Commentaries remarks (book v. c. xvii): ‘Cæsar, perceiving
their design, marched the army to the river Thames, towards the
territory of Cassivelaunus; that river was fordable only at one place,
and there with difficulty. When he arrived, he saw that the enemy was
drawn up in great force at the opposite bank of the river; but the
bank was fortified with stakes fixed in front; stakes also of the same
kind were driven into the bed of the river, concealed from view by the
stream. Cæsar, learning this from the prisoners and deserters, having
sent the cavalry before, ordered the legions to follow closely. This
the soldiers did with such celerity and vigour, their heads only seen
above water, that the enemy could not sustain the shock of the legions
and cavalry, but abandoned the banks and betook themselves to flight.
Besides the traces of a great Roman camp, still distinctly visible
on the brow of St. George’s hill, about two miles from Coway stakes,
the footprints of the legions are to be seen in many places round
Shepperton, and have been noted by Bede, Roy, Camden, Salmon, Gale,
Stukeley, and other antiquarian writers. To these the author may add
his own testimony, having found, in different parts of the property
(especially when cleaning out a ditch which runs through War-close),
various Roman coins and spikes, resembling spear-heads. Other relics of
the Romans, such as urns, have frequently been dug from the gravel-pits
opened during his time in different fields in the parish.
[435] Tacit. Agric. c. 13; and Strabo confirms this view (iv. c. 4.).
[436] Ibid. c. 15.
[437] Tacit. Ann. xii. 34.
[438] Strabo speaks, from personal observation, of the large stature of
the Britons whom he saw at Rome.
[439] Generally considered to be represented by the village of Bittern,
about one and a half miles up the Itchen, above the present Southampton.
[440] Cæs. B. G. vi. 13 and 14. Ibid. v. 14.
[441] Ptol. Geogr. ii. c. 3.
[442] “Uriconium, or Wroxeter,” by T. Wright, F.S.A. Lond. 1872.
[443] Tacit. Ann. xii. c. 31.
[444] “Abury Illustrated,” by W. Long, M.A. Devizes, 1858.
[445] Nor can we omit noticing here a matter which has in former
times been much disputed, whether or no there are any coins, clearly
British, antecedent to the invasion of Cæsar. On the evidence of all
the best MSS. of Cæsar’s Commentaries, especially of a very fine one
of the tenth century in the British Museum, we find Cæsar distinctly
stating that the Britons “use either brass money or gold money, or
instead of money, iron rings, adjusted to a certain weight.” (Cæs.
Bell. Gall. v. 10. E. Hawkins’ “Silver Coins of England” (1841), pp.
9-14. Evans’ “Coins of the Ancient Britons,” pp. 18 and 285. Lond.
1864.) It was only about the seventeenth century that the editors of
Cæsar, Scaliger leading the way, corrupted this passage and made him
assert that only substitutes for money were used by the natives. All
the facts are in favour of the MSS., for coins of gold, sometimes of
silver, but very rarely of copper, are found in different parts of
England, and as is evident to any eye, are in form, fabric, and type,
constructed on a model differing essentially from any thing of Roman
origin. Indeed, as is well known to numismatists, the original British
coins were constructed on Greek models, and, however rude, may be
traced back, step by step, to the gold money (staters) of Philip, the
father of Alexander the Great. Plenty of coins exist of the time of
Cæsar’s second invasion and of Cunobeline, who was alive in the reign
of Claudius; the first, in a purely British (_i.e._, Greek) type, the
second, with an obvious imitation of those of the Romans—and perhaps
executed, as some have thought, by Roman artists.—Tacit. Annals, xii.
31-36.
[446] Dion. Cass. lx. c. 21.
[447] Strabo, iv. 2.
[448] Strabo, iii. p. 119; ii. p. 190; iv. pp. 279, 318. Diod. Sic. v.
s. 22.
[449] Ibid. ii. p. 176; and iv. p. 306.
[450] Ibid. i. p. 132.
[451] Dion. lx. 21.
[452] J. Evans, “Coins of the Ancient Britons,” p. 284, &c. Lond. 1864.
[453] Details of early London in Ptol. i. 15; vi. 8. Tacit. Ann. xiv.
33. It is first mentioned by Tacitus.
[454] Tacit. Vit. Agric. c. 19.
[455] Tacit. Ann. xiv. 33.
[456] Juvenal, Sat. iv. 140.
[457] Martial, xiv. 99.
[458] Dion. lxvi. 12.
[459] For further details, see Rev. J. C. Bruce, “The Roman Wall from
Tyne to Solway.” 4to., 1867.
[460] An attempt has been made by one or two writers to connect the
name of Carausius with the “War of Caros” in the so-called “Poems of
Ossian.” For this there will be some pretence, whenever it shall be
shown that Ossian exists, except in the brain of Macpherson.
[461] Camden describes Kiulæ as a general name for all Saxon vessels.
Other writers say that Kiula meant “long ships,” _i.e._, men of war, or
galleys, whatever might be their precise shape. _Keel_ now represents
a description of barge which has long been in use in the north of
England, and especially on the Tyne, built to hold twenty-one tons four
hundredweight, or a keel of coals.
[462] Macpherson’s “Annals of Commerce,” i. p. 217.
[463] Bede places the final withdrawal of the Roman forces from
England, and the consequent misfortunes which befell the native
Britons, at just before the siege of Rome by Attila, A.D. 409. Eccles.
Hist. i. c. 2. See also “Uriconium,” by T. Wright. 8vo., 1872.