Download Chapter 1 Social Order Maintenance in Celtic

Chapter 1
Social Order Maintenance in Celtic & Roman Britain
Objectives
•
Understand and describe how social order was maintained in Celtic Britain
•
Understand and describe how social order was maintained in Roman Britain
•
Understand that the Celtic philosophy of punishment was community based
involving fines, restitution, deterrence and rehabilitation
• Understand that the Roman philosophy of punishment was based on
imprisonment, hard labour and the death penalty.
Celtic order maintenance
Studies of contemporary hunter-gatherers suggest that hunting has significant social
effects. It helps to foster a binding relationship within the group. As nomads, huntergatherers need to carry their possessions with them; this mobility limits
acquisitiveness and excessive competition. Contemporary groups are comprised of
between 30–50 individuals, a number that appears to minimise social tensions within
the group and to have little or no adverse impact on the environment. There is a
body of opinion that argues that before human societies grew far beyond these
numbers, with their eventual enlargement into tribes and states, kinship and the
need for cooperation acted as a strong social deterrence against criminal activity.
Celtic peace keeping arrangements were also based on cooperation and the ties of
kinship and centred on the tribe and the village. The Celts had a highly developed
sense of the rights and duties, familial and tribal, of every member of their society.
Raiding was a major feature of Celtic life and was probably endemic throughout
Europe. A Celt could enhance his status by engaging in acts of prowess,
demonstrating leadership abilities, courage and acquiring booty for distribution to his
followers. Whilst raids would initially have been carried out on near neighbours,
eventually those seeking greater status and rewards would have travelled further
afield. It is possible that bands of marauding Celts who carried out raids in England
eventually returned as settlers, the first immigrants from Northern France colonising
Sussex, Dorset and Wiltshire and introducing a settled farming economy. The
predatory behaviour of different tribes would have served to strengthen ties of
kinship and the willingness to cooperate amongst members of village communities.
Although the Celts were portrayed as barbarians by the Romans, their culture was
based on honour rather than acquisitiveness. To the Celts, warfare was a matter of
honour; they were not concerned with abstract notions of centralised power and
authority. For them personal honour, the honour of kin and clan were what mattered,
and under the influence of the Druids, battles could be decided by single combat,
which in itself might be violent and bloody, but served to prevent many deaths and
lingering feuds. Far from being barbarians, the Celts were already practising a
nascent form of chivalry.
The effective social unit in Celtic society was the kin. Land was not owned by an
individual but by the kin. It was through the kin that the law was enforced and
redress obtained. The kin of contesting parties were responsible for maintaining
rights and obtaining settlement.
Each person within society, with the possible exception of non-status individuals
(prisoners of war or those who had infringed the rules of society), had an honour
price directly related to their material wealth, which gave a physical indication of his
dignity. The honour price was directly related to compensation in respect of wrongs
committed. Social divisions in society were becoming evident.
In addition to the ties and duties of kinship there existed the institution of client-ship.
Client-ship was basically a social contract in which the freeman provided armed
support and fulfilled other obligations to his lord. In return he enjoyed protection and
material support whilst retaining his freedom and independence. Among the ruling
classes fostering was practiced, this involved the placing of some of the male
children with neighbours, usually of higher rank, thus ensuring that close bonds of
loyalty were formed.
Punishment within the community is not a new concept, together with fines it was
being practised more than two thousand years ago. The maintenance of the law
was not dependent upon any central authority but rather on ritual and popular
acceptance. The threat of sanctions, such as loss of status and exclusion from
religious rites and community involvement was a potent factor in upholding the law.
Roman order maintenance
It was Roman policy to “Romanise”
their neighbours. The Celts of
Britain had been exposed to the
influence of Rome and the
Mediterranean for some
considerable time as a result of
trade. In 55BC a military expedition
under Julius Caesar penetrated
scarcely ten miles inland from the
straits of Dover. Caesar returned to
Britain in 54BC with a much larger
force which was victorious in several
battles and crossed the Thames in
the face of strong Celtic opposition. The Romans penetrated into the territories of
the Catuvellauni dealing a severe blow to the prestige of Cassivellaunus, the
dominant king in southern Britain. Envy of the dominance of the Catuvellauni
coupled with a healthy respect for Rome’s formidable army caused not only rival
tribes but some of the tribes subject to the Catuvellauni to seek alliance with Rome
by agreeing treaties, binding them to the protection of Roman interests against
hostile tribes. The economic development of those areas peopled by tribes hostile to
Rome suffered adversely, whilst those tribes who had sought peace by the
agreement of treaties enjoyed expansion of their commercial links with the Roman
world and increasing access to luxury goods such as Mediterranean wines.
Compliance with the laws of society were now based on a mix of fear and personal
gain.
It was the emperor Claudius who launched the invasion of Britain in 43AD. After
conquest it was the aim of Rome to delegate the burdens of local government as
soon as practicable to the native population. Subject states, like free states, retained
their own laws as long as there was no conflict with the law codes of Rome. It was
the aim of Rome to delegate the burdens of local government as soon as practicable
to the native population. The Romans tended to think in terms of communities of
people rather than in gains of territory which gave rise to a desire to deal with cities.
Where no cities existed they set about establishing them as their preferred method of
political control. In Britain the old tribal centres were encouraged to become regional
urban capitals. This policy of Romanisation was followed consistently by successive
Governors, the policy of military subjugation was not quite as consistent.
After the death of King Prasutagus the Romans had attempted to seize this client
kingdom but his widow Boudicca resisted. The Romans responded by flogging the
Queen and raping her daughters. This unwarranted abuse of force and insult to the
Iceni unleashed their fury and that of their neighbours the Trinovante of Essex,
resulting in excess of 150,000 unnecessary deaths. The Roman city of Colchester
was overrun and destroyed.
Petillius Cerialis with Legion IX Hispana rushed to meet the Britons in battle, his
infantry were cut to pieces, and with his cavalry he was forced to beat a hasty retreat
to the Roman fort at Longthorpe near Peterborough. The rebels sacked St. Albans
and London and seventy thousand were put to death amid torture and savage
mutilation. The defeat of legion IX Hispana was to attract merciless retribution.
London and St Albans were abandoned to their fate as indefensible. A pitched battle
in the Midlands resulted in the slaying of eighty thousand Britons by the army of
Gaius Suetonius Paulinus. Boudicca committed suicide by taking poison and
Paulinus sparing no one set about punishing the rebels and neutral tribes alike.
The new procurator Julius Classicanus intervened to prevent further uprisings.
Following an imperial inquiry Paulinus was removed from office. A substantial
number of Britons had favoured Rome in 43AD but very many were alienated in the
years that followed as a result of wholesale confiscation and plunder and the corrupt
practices of some Roman officials.
When Paulinus came to Briton as Governor (58-59AD) he was accompanied by the
nineteen year old military tribune Julius Agricola. As a result of his experiences with
Paulinus, Agrippa had clearly learned lessons about winning hearts and minds as a
means of maintaining order. A reasonable picture of order maintenance in Britain
during the governorship of Agricola, who returned as governor in 78AD, can be
gained from the biography written by his son in law Tacitus.
Governors appointed to the provinces were the personal representatives of the
Emperor. Having sound political and military experience, they also needed sufficient
personal wealth to maintain a powerful political influence. Not all officials wielded
that influence with the impartially that Tacitus claims for Agricola Whilst Agricola was
willing and able to gain a psychological advantage over the Britons by the conscious
use of terror to crush resistance, he also sought to capture hearts and minds by
attempting to establish just government and enduring peace. Agricola showed that
he was willing to enquire into corrupt practices even where this meant interfering in
matters which were strictly speaking the responsibility of the Imperial Procurator.
A particular instance concerns the obligation on the local centres of population to
provide grain for the army. This grain was purchased at a fixed price. There appear
to have been two scams by which corrupt officials fraudulently extracted money from
the local populace. If a community could not supply the required grain for some
reason, they were forced to purchase grain from the Imperial Granaries in order to
sell it back at a much reduced price. If they could provide grain, they would be
instructed to deliver it not to the local fortress, but to an encampment some
considerable distance away. In order to avoid the exorbitant costs of transport they
would be invited to make a cash payment. The profits from these fraudulent
practices were pocketed by corrupt and high ranking officials. Agricola put a stop to
these practices.
As governor he was the chief justice of the province with authority extending over
both civil and criminal matters. Obviously he could not try all cases, but rather he
had an appellate function in relation to provincial law suits. He would have been
responsible for the reconciliation of differences between local and Roman law as well
as arbitrating in disagreements between communities. He was expected to tour the
province holding sessional courts at specified towns as well as holding court at the
provincial capital. It was the governor’s responsibility to try all serious criminal
cases, particularly where it was necessary to exercise the power to sentence to
death, or where condemnation to the mines might be expected. He would hear all
cases involving Roman citizens, who could, should they so wish, demand to be tried
at Rome.
The governor had a corps of speculatores at his disposal. These men drawn from
each of the legions provided a body of police, jailers and executioners. Roman
punishment was swift and brutal ranging from flogging, imprisonment, slavery in the
mines, death in the arena or by crucifixion. The purpose of Roman punishment was
to instil such fear that people would not offend or for those who did, to ensure that
offending was a single incident.
Britain was considered a problem posting, instead of a single legion maintaining
order, four were considered necessary. Only men of the greatest ability and
experience were chosen as Governors of Britain. Considering the length of time
Agricola held the post, seven years, it can be reasonably inferred that he was
successful in maintaining order.
After conquering and annexing foreign territory the Romans could impose a general
overall control, enforcing military jurisdiction by means of the legions. Despite the
fact that dispensation of justice would have been much easier within the framework
of a developed legal system, two different law codes, native and Roman, existed in
Britain until the early 3rd century. After this time, the grant of citizenship to all
freeborn inhabitants of the Empire would have virtually eliminated the need for
national laws. However, shortly after the Roman occupation, transactions between
the native population for the settlement of business, or even disputes, would
increasingly have become a matter of discussion and legal redress rather than
armed conflict.