Download THE FLAVIAN INVASIONS – a re-evaluation

1b. THE FLAVIAN INVASIONS – a re-evaluation
Aim: To re-evaluate the chronology & achievements
of the Flavians.
Emperor Nero of the JulioClaudian Dynasty, before the
Flavians (54-68AD)
Traditionally it has been accepted with a degree of certitude that under the Flavians
Agricola invaded North Britain around 79AD, conquered and then promptly left (c84AD),
leaving a secure and stable north to his unknown successor (perhaps Governor Sallutus
Lucullus). Agricola’s successor(s) remained in the north but not the far north, maintaining a
thinned out presence in the southern lowlands before retreating to the Tyne-Solway isthmus
by 105AD.
However, more recently academics such as Dr D.J. Woolliscroft of University of Liverpool and
Dr Birgitta Hoffmann have called into question the accepted chronology, the accepted
account and the accepted success of the invasions.
The basis for their re-evaluation is that they have found sites in the North which pre-date the
Agricolan invasion. If sites pre-date Agricola it means that someone else, someone before
Agricola, was responsible for advancing north. By default this could then imply that if the
dates are wrong, what else is wrong? Perhaps, Agricola and the Flavians have been wrongly
credited with achievements that are either not their own or are just lies. Perhaps he/they
can no longer be credited with:
 Expanding Rome’s boundaries
 Eliminating hostile enemies
 Going into terra incognita – unknown territory
 “Taking Britain”
 Gaining the glory of being first to conquer the North.
1
The revised interpretation of the First Century Occupation
Recent fieldwork has presented challenges to the traditional Flavian narrative. Fieldwork
from sites such as the Gask Ridge suggests that our dates and subsequent interpretations are
wrong.
It was thought that Agricola was first to advance into the North, around 80AD and that the
North was occupied for a short time of around seven years. However, evidence from the
Gask Ridge suggests lengthier periods of occupation.
Evidence for a lengthier occupation:
1. Some of the fortlets on the Gask Ridge were built, rebuilt and then rebuilt again – you
would not rebuild three times in just 7 years!
2. Some ditches around Roman camps were re-dug. Redigging is not a quick or simple
task and was only done after a considerable amount of silt had built up in the existing
ditch (the build up of silt takes years).
3. Pollen evidence shows the natives were involved in pastoral farming rather than arable
farming. This suggests that the natives had time to build up livestock to meet the
Roman army’s demands – this takes years.
So, Tacitus tells us to expect a Flavian occupation of a maximum of seven years but this new
evidence suggests an occupation of between 15-20 years.
Our options to explain this incongruity are; either Agricola’s army stayed longer, arrived
earlier or later Romans reused the sites.
However, none of these options are possible because:
 AGRICOLA AND HIS LEGIONS COULD NOT HAVE STAYED LATER - we know for sure that
Agricola was recalled in 84AD so he could not have stayed later. Moreover, there
was a surge/increase in coin production during 86 and 87AD so we’d expect to see
coins from these years on Roman sites in the north if the Romans were still occupying
the area but in reality, there is an almost total absence of coins from 87AD. This
suggests that the area was abandoned after the coins arrived in 86 AD but before the
2
87AD coins arrived! Also, we know that at this time across the Roman Empire there
were problems in the Danube land at the hands of the Dacians. Troops had to be
withdrawn from wherever they could be spared to protect the imperial heartlands.
We know troops were withdrawn from Britain at this time to help out in the Danube.
 AGRICOLA COULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPOINTED EARLIER - We know he was only
appointed in 77 or 78AD so he can’t have come earlier – this date is pretty much
written in stone.
 ROMANS REOCCUPIED AND RE-USED STRUCTURES - Finally, finds from the sites are all
Flavian finds (e.g. Flavian coins) - there has not been a single Antonine find and so the
forts are definitely Flavian.
BEST ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION…
The best alternative explanation is that Agricola’s predecessors were active in Northern
Britain.
His predecessor Petillius Cerealis (Governor from AD 71-74) established a fort at
Carlisle in the very north of England and his activities may well have extended north of
Carlisle and even as far north as Strathmore.
The academic, David Shooter, has found
Neronian and early Vespasian coins, which pre-date Agricola, on a number of Scottish sites.
So, there is evidence of Cerialian origins and activities prior to Agricola. Similarly, coloured
and cast glass, which was fashionable in the early 70s in Rome, was found in sites including
Newstead and Inchtuthil, indicating an earlier occupation.
Beyond the archaeological evidence there are some literary references to support the view
of an earlier occupation. The retired senior politician, Silius Italicus wrote a poem which
suggests that all of Britain was conquered before the time of Vespasian’s death. If this was
wrong Italicus would have been executed however, to the contrary his family continue to
thrive in Domitian's reign. Similarly, Pliny the Elder refers to campaigns against the
Caledonians by the 70s. The poet Statius refers to Cerealis’ predecessor, Vettius Bolanus, as
actually setting up “watchtowers and strongholds” in Caledonia.
What does this evidence/interpretation mean for Agricola???
3
AGRICOLA: HE CAME, HE SAW, BUT DID HE CONQUER?
D.J.Woolliscroft, University of Liverpool
http://www.theromangaskproject.org.uk/Pages/Introduction/Agricola-hecame.html
This academic paper explains why the traditional version of Agricola’s achievements and the Flavian
success needs to be reconsidered.
The last decade has seen something of a resurgence of interest in Roman Scotland
and this paper will discuss a number of chronological issues that have arisen as a
result. Since 1995, the writer's own contribution has been through the Roman Gask
Project: a long term research program whose remit is to study Roman Scotland
north of the Antonine Wall, although, as the name suggests, its principle focus has
been on the system of military works on and around the Gask Ridge in Perthshire.
The Gask line is a fortified Roman frontier (albeit without a running barrier) and
consists of a chain of turf and timber built forts, fortlets and watch towers, strung out
along the Roman road to the Tay. At present, some 37 km are known, stretching
from Glenbank, to the north of Dunblane, to Bertha just upstream of Perth, on the
The Gask Ridge is a
Roman frontier in
Perthshire.
Tay (fig 1), and more probably awaits discovery. It is, however, only part of a much
larger system, for there is a further series of forts to the north, along Strathmore and
Academics used to
the southern highland fringe, whose lynch pin lies at the legionary fortress of
think that it was the
Inchtuthil (fig 2). The entire system was probably designed to control the strategic,
2nd frontier in the
potential invasion corridor through Strathmore, Strathearn and Strathallan and,
roman world – the
1st being in
although the more northerly forts are often called "glen blockers", as though their
Germany. They
principle role was to guard against direct attacks from the Highland massif, they
thought that the
may have been just as useful as a means of preventing any force moving down
Gask Ridge had
Strathmore from outflanking the main frontier by using the maze of interconnecting
been built in the
80’s (by Agricola)
passes which link Loch Lomond and the Tay, Earn and Teith valleys within the hills.
but now it is thought
that the Gask Ridge
The frontier may, thus, show a greater strategic appreciation than has often been
came first and may
realised but, at first sight, there is otherwise nothing particularly remarkable about it.
pre-date Agricola –
calling into question
It belongs to a familiar class of early Roman frontier defences which also includes
our chronology and
the Wetterau Limes in Germany and, although good work had been done, few
view of the Flavian
archaeologists had paid it much attention. It was certainly noted as the earliest
period.
Roman frontier in Britain, for there was evidence to date its construction to the
Flavian period, around forty years before Hadrian's Wall. But its attractiveness as a
4
research target suffered partly because it was seen as less glamorous than the two
wall frontiers and partly because it was thought to be slightly later than the German
frontier. The 1990's, however, saw a thorough reexamination of the dating evidence
for the birth of the German Limes and it now seems to be generally accepted that
it was not built until 15 - 20 years later than had been thought, in the early years of
the second century, and the reign of the Emperor Trajan. This puts it later than the
Gask which means that, against all expectations, can now claim to be the
prototype Roman land frontier and a monument of international importance. It thus
became vital that a more systematic study should take place, hence inter alia the
Roman Gask Project.
The traditional
Interestingly, the Project's own results have been equally unexpected, if in the
chronology and
opposite direction and, again, the shocks have concerned dating. The traditional
view – a recap.
chronology revolves around the activities of Britain's most famous Roman governor:
Good quote – “this
Gnaeus Julius Agricola. Agricola is well known because his son-in-law, the historian
little book has been
Tacitus, wrote an account of his life and as one of the few detailed sources for the
subjected to more
history of Roman Britain, this little book has been subjected to more analysis than
analysis than almost
almost any other non religious text. Nevertheless, the gist is that Agricola took over
any other nonreligious text.
as governor late in 77 AD and immediately began a series of military campaigns,
first in North Wales and then into what is now northern England and Scotland. By 79
he had reached the Tay and then, after a few years of consolidation, he advanced
further, up Strathmore and on as far as the Moray Firth. In 84 he won a decisive
victory against the Caledonians at an unknown place called Mons Graupius,
before being recalled to Rome by the Emperor Domitian at the end of an unusually
long 7-year term of office. Tacitus then tells us, rather cryptically, in his "Histories",
that "all Britain was taken and then immediately thrown away", suggesting that
Agricola's conquests were abandoned shortly thereafter.
Not surprisingly, archaeologists have seized on this text, because it seemed to
explain so much of what we find in northern Scotland. To date Scotland north of
the Forth-Clyde line has yielded a frontier, a remarkable collection of over 70
temporary camps, a legionary fortress and 14 auxiliary forts, most of which seem to
date to roughly this period, and with coin evidence to suggest that the area was
indeed abandoned in the mid 80's. There has been much argument over detail,
but it has usually been assumed that the northernmost forts (including Inchtuthil)
were built after Mons Graupius by Agricola's, as yet unknown successor, and were
5
thus only in use for the remaining few years of the Flavian occupation, whilst at least
some of the forts to the south of the Tay might be Agricola's own work and thus
occupied rather longer.
The Gask itself, has often been seen as shorter lived still, perhaps lasting for as little
Gask Ridge seen to
have been
as a single year, partly because it was once thought unlikely that it would have
coexisted with the glen blocker line and partly because, although the forts on the
occupied by
Gask have shown signs of two Flavian structural periods, suggesting a long enough
Agricola for less
occupation for repairs and rebuilding to become necessary, only a single period
than a year (one
had been recognised in the towers and fortlets. This led to a number of suggestions
single phase of
occupation) & was
for stages within the Flavian incursion where a short chronology Gask might be
a last ditch attempt
fitted, of which the most popular was that it represented a last ditch attempt to hold
to hang onto Fife.
onto Fife, in the late 80's, when the rest of the north was abandoned. The entire story
became a model of the way in which archaeology and historical texts could be
used in combination and the writer, for one, believed it implicitly. Almost
immediately, however, the Gask Project began to throw unexpected doubts on
the traditional chronology, because there was simply too much archaeology to fit.
Instead of one
phase of
The Project's work began with excavations at the three Gask towers of
occupation – there
Greenloaning, Shielhill South and Huntingtower and, instead of the single phase
are three phases of
that had been expected, all three produced signs of at least two and possibly
occupying Gask
three structural periods. In other words, instead of being built, occupied briefly and
Ridge – this suggests
a longer Flavian
then demolished, the towers had needed to be completely rebuilt at least once
occupation and
and possibly twice during their service lives. Moreover, a CFA excavation at the
maybe Agricola
Gask tower of Blackhill Wood soon produced a similar picture and, in each case,
someone else was
the evidence took the form of a replacement of the towers' main structural posts
there for longer.
(fig 3). There was thus suddenly evidence for a more prolonged Flavian occupation,
although how prolonged still remains open to question. Much probably depends on
how long substantial timber uprights (up to 40cm in diameter) could be expected
to last before needing replacement, and this, in turn, depends, at least partly, on
what they were made of. For the Romans did sometimes use far from ideal timber in
military structures: alder for example, which tends to rot fairly quickly once set into
the ground. Environmental analyses from Gask sites have suggested that virtually
Evidence suggests it
may’ve been
occupied for longer
than 7 years – which
the only trees in this landscape in Roman times were water loving species, such as
alder and willow, around the rivers, with the rest of the area virtually treeless and
devoted to grazing. But the Project's analysis of wood fragments from the postholes
is the sum total of
6
time Agricola was
of Roundlaw tower, coupled to earlier evidence from Raith, would suggest that the
governor for – so, he
structural timber actually used was oak and this could have been expected to last
alone couldn’t have
occupied it.
for years before needing replacement. Likewise a number of sites also showed signs
of ditch re-cutting, but not before a considerable depth of silt had formed in the
ditch bottoms. Indeed some of the ditches had silted almost back to the original
surface before they were re-dug and this again must have taken some time,
especially as Glenbank fortlet, had its ditches cut no less than three times. The result
was a clash between a historical model which tells us to expect between 1 and 7
years of occupation and archaeological evidence for significantly more.
Of the remaining excavated Gask installations, most were studied by 19th and early
20th century methods and were not well enough recorded for phasing to show.
Nevertheless, one more tower, Moss Side, does show signs of rebuilding.
Furthermore Westerton, the only other tower to have been excavated by modern
methods, proved to have two posts in the one post hole studied and, although their
relationship remains unclear, this could be an indication of the same process.
More interestingly, there is evidence that at least one of the frontier sites was rebuilt
as a completely different installation type, for the fortlet of Midgate, when
excavated, in 1900, was found to sit so close beside one of the watchtowers that
the two sites' ditches come to within 13m of one another. There was obviously little
point in placing lookout points so close together and so these two cannot be
contemporary, which means that at some point the Romans replaced a tower with
a fortlet here, or vice versa. Unfortunately, the ditches stay just far enough apart
that their upcast does not overlap to provide a stratigraphic sequence, and so it
has not been possible to show which site came first. There may, however, be
another of these double sites, at Raith. One of the normal Gask towers was found
on this spot during the construction of a water tank in 1901. But air photography has
since revealed a possible fortlet ditch, which instead of sitting next to the tower, as
at Midgate, actually surrounds it. Indeed, Raith might actually be a triple site since
both installations lie inside a newly discovered Roman temporary camp (fig 4). This
site should thus be able to tell us the building sequence, although as yet the Project
has been unable to get access to the land. Nevertheless, the very existence of
these double sites provides additional evidence for prolonged occupation.
The Project has also been able to compare ancient pollen trapped in the turf used
7
in Roman ramparts (which preserves evidence for the immediately pre-Roman
landscape) with that from Roman period ditch silts. This has revealed evidence that
farming intensified during the occupation, presumably in response to Roman,
supply needs, which would probably have been met by some mixture of taxation
and purchase. But, as the same pollen evidence also shows that native farming in
the area was almost wholly based on stock rearing, this is something that could not
have happened overnight. Building stock numbers takes a lot more time than
increasing arable cultivation and so again an extended occupation seems to be
needed.
Things become even more complex when we look beyond the Gask to the forts of
We used to think
Strathmore. These lie north of the Tay and so, on the current chronology, they
that the forts north
should only have been in use for perhaps 2 years, but again signs of rebuilding are
of the Tay were all
emerging. For example, A.S.Robertson's large-scale excavations at Cardean during
built by Agricola or
his successor and so
the 1960s and 70s are currently being prepared for publication by B.Hoffmann who
were only lived in for
has shown that all of the major excavated buildings have evidence for at least one
a short time but now
rebuild. Inchtuthil may also be longer lived and more complex than is often thought,
it seems that they
for an extra ditch and rampart defence was discovered to the east of the fortress in
were occupied for
longer so our
1901 (close to the so called "officers compound") which may represent another
chronology must be
phase. This was ignored in the report of Richmond's post-war excavations, as were
wrong.
two long rectangular buildings which could be associated with this structure. There
may even be signs of Roman activity on the site after the fortress was given up, for
the 1901 excavation found ovens set into its ditch, whilst Richmond himself found a
Roman ditch cutting through one of the demolished tribune's houses.
The ultimate record may go to Cargill, however, where unpublished excavations in
the 1970s apparently found up to six phases in at least parts of the fort
(G.S.Maxwell, pers comm). This is anyway rather an odd site because the full sized
Our chronology is
auxiliary fort lies only a few hundred yards to the east of a large (c.1 acre) fortlet.
wrong as the
The two seem unlikely to be contemporary, as again there would be little point in
occupation lasted
longer than the
putting garrisons so close together, and so this second site adds yet another phase
expected 7 years as
and, whilst it might be possible to imagine a fort being remodeled once, soon after
forts etc were rebuilt
construction, seven structural phases (including a change of site type) in two years
after years of
seems far fetched in the extreme. In fact, even as far north as Strathmore we seem
occupation not just
after a few years of
occupation.
to have prolonged Flavian occupation and the only available conclusion is that
something is wrong with our current historical model. We simply have to have a
8
longer first century occupation than was previously thought possible. But where can
we push the present chronology?
At first sight the start date of 79, imposed by the "Agricola" seems to be writ in stone,
but any assumption that the Romans must have stayed on later than we had
thought immediately faces something of a brick wall. Current theory on the end of
the occupation rests largely on an analysis of the coins from Scotland by Hobley.
Roman 1st century coinage did not, it seems, enter Britain in a steady flow. Instead,
new coins were only provided by the central mint when they were needed for
some reason, perhaps to top up a government pool usually reliant on the
province's own taxation. There are thus surge years when large numbers of coins
arrived, followed by dearth periods (which could last for many years) when new
coins were rare. 86 and 87 AD happen to be particular surge years, so much so that
it is unusual for a site of any significance occupied during those years not to
produce their coins. There was then a pause in the coin supply which lasted until
after the Emperor Domitian's death in 96. The forts of Northern Scotland have
produced quite a number of coins of 86, many of which show little or no wear, but
none are known with certainty from 87. It seems likely, therefore, that the Romans
The old chronology
pulled out of Scotland at sometime between late 86 and mid 87. This is fairly hard
that the withdrawal
evidence and it certainly fits well with what we know of the history of the period. For
started around
in the mid 80's AD Rome suffered a series of defeats in the strategically far more
86/87 is probably still
important Danube lands, only a week or ten days march from Rome. As a result,
right.
troops had to be withdrawn from wherever they could be spared to protect the
imperial heartlands. Britain, as a peripheral, and perhaps ultimately expendable
province, was an obvious target and permanently lost one full legion (perhaps
accompanied by auxiliary units). As a result, the provincial army may no longer
have had the manpower to hold the northern conquests safely, and a withdrawal
in or around 87 fits perfectly.
Moreover, however long the occupation was, we have plentiful evidence that its
abandonment was a matter of deliberate Roman policy, rather than the result of at
least direct hostile pressure. At the same time, however, it might also have been
rather sudden and unexpected by the men on the ground. For there is no
evidence, from any of the sites, for the sort of destruction that might have been
caused by enemy action. Instead we find a general picture of careful demolition
and the elimination, removal or burial of useful material. Yet Midgate fortlet seems
9
to have been abandoned whilst in the process of having its ditch cleaned out: not
a particularly long job on a site of this size (c. 24m square) and something that
would surely not even have been started had the garrison known that they were
about to withdraw.
The invasions and
occupation must’ve
started earlier,
before 79AD.
If we cannot push back the end of the occupation (and even if occasional coins of
87 do turn up in the future, other find types cannot be taken beyond about 90), the
alternative is the 79 start date. Here, of course, we run straight into the "Agricola"
and centuries of scholarship based on it. It had seemed unassailable but is it, in
fact, so credible a work? Indeed, to what extent can we trust it at all? The
"Agricola" is all too often treated as straightforward biography, or even as history,
but in reality it is no such thing and was never meant to be. Tacitus says so. In fact,
he had quite a number of personal axes to grind here, ranging from political spin to
filial loyalty and personal vanity and is probably best treated with at least a degree
of skepticism.
Somewhat nebulous doubts over Tacitus' veracity are hardly new, but his credit was
recently given a major blow by tree ring dates for the rampart timbers of the
earliest fort at Carlisle. As with Scotland, Tacitus has been interpreted as assigning
Tree ring dating tells
the conquest of northern England to Agricola and so, not surprisingly, Carlisle
us that forts like
(although not mentioned in the text) had always been assumed to have been an
Carlisle which
Agricolan
Agricola was meant
to have built after
creation.
It
thus
came
as
something
of
a
shock
that
the
dendrochronology provided a very firm foundation date of late 72. These were not
79 were built in
seasoned timbers, so we cannot argue that they had simply spent several years in
72AD when Cerealis
storage. Likewise, this installation was a permanent Roman fort and not just a
was governor
temporary camp that could be safely assigned to some minor unrecorded
excursion.. Yet it had been founded five years before Agricola's tenure of office
even began, in the time of his predecessor but one as Governor, Q Petillius Cerialis.
Such a serious contradiction of Tacitus' account forced a complete reexamination
of our history of this period and evidence can now be put forward to suggest that
Cerialis' activities may have extended well beyond Carlisle. Moreover, there are
Roman literary sources to back this up. For example, Pliny the Elder's "Natural
History" makes a reference to Roman campaigns against the Caledonians within
thirty years of the invasion, i.e. by or before 73, whilst the poet Statius refers to
Cerialis' own predecessor, Vettius Bolanus, setting up a rather familiar sounding
system of "watch towers and strongholds" in Caledonia.
10
Statius was a poet and his geography may be somewhat uncertain (as indeed was
Tacitus'). It might, thus, be argued that to him "Caledonia" may have meant little
more than "up north". But it is interesting that he actually used the term "The
Caledonian plain", which is suggestive of the central belt, whilst the stock
description of Scotland was as mountainous. Pliny, however, was a very different
animal: a scientist and friend of the Emperor Vespasian, he was a senior Roman
official who knew his geography and might be expected to use political language
precisely. Under normal circumstances his "within thirty years" might even then be
taken as somewhat vague, with a margin for error which might be pushed as far as
Tacitus' AD 79 date for Agricola on the Tay. But Pliny died in August 79, in the same
eruption of Mt Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii and, as the dedication in his book
suggests that it was published in 77, there can be no doubt that he was referring to
operations before Agricola became governor.
Even Pliny's remark, however, might not be enough to prove permanent
There is pottery
occupation, rather than occasional campaigning in Scotland, but archaeology
indicating that
might now be bridging that gap. For, in addition to the structural evidence already
occupation began
before the Flavians,
discussed, there is now growing support from finds analyses. For example, Ian
when Nero was on
Caruana has recently pointed out that there is enough pottery from the reigns of
the throne & there is
Nero and Domitian's father Vespasian to suggest pre or very early 70's occupation
glass to suggest
on sites as far north as the Gask fort of Strageath. Birgitta Hoffmann is currently
Newstead was
founded in the
writing a book length report on the glass found during all excavation and field
60sAD when Nero
walking activity at the fort of Newstead and says that she would now be perfectly
was on the throne.
comfortable with a foundation date in the late 60s. Meanwhile David Shotter has
Perhaps there were
made a reexamination of the coin evidence from Scotland and has revealed a
more Neronian
achievements than
disproportionately large number of Neronian and early Vespasianic coins. Many of
Flavian
these show little wear and so had not been in circulation for long when lost and,
achievements?
statistically, they are now reaching the point where a start date by or before the
early 70's seems at least as likely as the traditional date. The cumulative results of all
this activity boil down to something that would have seemed utter heresy just a few
years ago. For it is now looking more and more possible that Agricola was not the
first Roman Governor to occupy Scotland. The Romans may already have been
there when he arrived. The issue is still open to question, but a maximum life span for
the occupation of around 15 years (from say 72 to 87) no longer seems unlikely
and, at the very least, we need to stop trying to explain away what would
11
otherwise have been perfectly valid archaeological data simply because it
conflicts with Tacitus. This is not, of course, to deny the presence of Agricola, for we
know from inscriptions and other written sources that he did serve as governor of
Britain. Indeed he may well have gained military achievements. But this rewriting of
history would solve a number of questions that have puzzled scholars in the past. In
particular, Agricola was simply not the sort of person who got the job of Governor
of Britain, at least at a time when serious campaigning was contemplated.
Britain always remained a somewhat anomalous province for the Roman army
because, as an island in an age of unreliable sea transport, it was difficult to
reinforce quickly. As a result, it had to be able to stand alone in a crisis and so
always had a disproportionately large Roman garrison: in fact the largest of any
It makes more sense
province in the Empire. This meant that its governorship was one of the most senior
to assume that the
available. As a consequence it almost always went to one of the leading generals
first military invasion
was before Agricola
of the day and this is something which Agricola, at the time of his appointment,
because he himself
most emphatically was not. Normally, a governor of Britain would have already
wasn’t a great
governed at least one other military province and would often have campaigned
military man – his 3
under his own command. If we take the examples of Agricola's three predecessors,
predecessors were
but he wasn’t
any one of which might have been the real invader of Scotland, Vettius Bolanus,
(Governor 69 - 71) had campaigned in Armenia. Cerialis (Governor 71 - 74), was a
relative of the Emperor and possibly the most able general of his day, who had
come to Britain shortly after putting down a dangerous revolt in the Rhineland.
Meanwhile, Julius Frontinus, (Governor 74 - 77), wrote books on military stratagems.
And what had Agricola done? Tacitus gives us quite a catalogue but, although it is
obviously meant to seem impressive, it never quite succeeds. He had performed
two brief periods of military service, as part of the normal senatorial career, which
Agricola wasn’t a
included a term as commander of the 20th legion in Britain (ironically under
military man – he
Cerialis). But his only experience as a provincial governor was in Gallia Aquitania,
was a bureaucrat.
one of the few Roman provinces with no army presence whatever. Otherwise, he
had had a career of wall-to-wall administration. Like most Senators, he was
probably a practiced politician, lawyer and bureaucrat, but although he had
enough military experience to know how the army worked, and had seen some
active service, he was by no means a military figure. Yet he was then appointed to
govern Britain, one of the most senior commands in the Empire. It seems like
madness but, in fact, there are plentiful precedents and, timed well, it could be a
perfectly sensible move. What normally happened is that once (and only once) a
12
major campaigning sequence was over and any new territory was pacified,
exactly such a figure would be sent in to create the machinery of Roman provincial
government: a tax system, a judicial system, proper logistical arrangements for the
army and so on. Of course occasionally Rome miscalculated, the most famous
example being Varus, who was sent into Germany as just such an administrator
after the Province's supposed conquest and ended up loosing his life, his army and
the Province itself in the course of a native revolt, in 9 AD. For the most part,
however, this arrangement worked well and it is noteworthy that Tacitus stresses
Agricola's work in Romanisation and taxation matters. Of course there may still have
been trouble and there may even have been a battle of Mons Graupius, although
in reality it may actually have been little more than a skirmish, but fighting was
probably not the real reason Agricola was here. It seems more likely that he was
appointed primarily to put conquests actually gained by his predecessors onto a
proper administrative footing and that what military ability he may have had was
merely a useful safety feature.
So, the newest evidence suggests that:
 Agricola was not the first to occupy Scotland
 Agricola was not the builder or creator of the glen blocking forts, the Gask Ridge
or the forts in the southern lowlands
 Agricola did not conquer the North
 Agricola administered the North
 Agricola’s predecessors may have been the first into the North (Vettius Bolanus,
Governor 69 - 71, Cerialis, Governor 71 - 74, Julius Frontinus, Governor 74 – 77).
 The occupation may have started when Nero was on the throne in the 60s AD,
and was the work of the Julio-Claudian dynasty not the Flavians
 The Flavians may have been building upon Nero’s achievements
 The Flavians still may have penetrated further north than anyone before, but this
was not necessarily down to Agricola
 We have been over-reliant on “The Agricola” and should bear in mind how
Agricola “was singularly fortunate in his choice of son-in-law” (David Breeze).
13
TASKS
1. Why do modern academics such as Woolliscroft and Hoffmann now
question Agricola’s role in North Britain?
2. How long do they believe the first Roman occupation of Scotland north of
the Forth-Clyde line may have lasted?
3. What evidence suggests that northern Scotland was abandoned c.87 AD?
4. What evidence suggests that Agricola was not the first Roman Governor to
occupy North Britain?
5. Read the Woolliscroft article and quote/paraphrase his key ideas on:
a) Tacitus’ Agricola as a historical source
b) why the Romans must have been in the north longer than is
traditionally assumed
c) Agricola’s role in North Britain
d) the significance of Mons Graupius.
14