The Roman Occupation of Britain

Mr. President and Gentlemen,--The saying has now almost passed into a proverb that "the Roman Empire declined and fell; the British Empire shall never decline or fall." Possibly, however, such a sentence is a little misleading, in so far as it may give a mistaken impression concerning the durability of the Roman Empire. By Zoo B.C. the Romans might be said to have an Empire beyond Italy and Sicily; just when that Empire came to an end it would be hard to say. Like Charles II., it was "an unconscionable time a'dying." But if we confine our attention to the centuries during which the Empire established by the Roman Senate and people and then by the Emperors, may be said to have maintained more or less its original character, its duration is well indicated by the fact that Britain was one of the last countries to be annexed as a Province and one of, the first to be abandoned; and yet the Romans were in Britain for nearly four centuries, a period equal in length to that which separates the Reformation from our own days.

At first sight we may be surprised, that this being the case, so few evidences, material or otherwise, of their occupation seem to remain. In Britain there are no remains to compare with the magnificent temples, arches, aqueducts and amphitheatres that can be seen today in Italy, Spain or Southern France. Again, while, for instance, in Gaul the barbarian invaders of the Empire became assimilated to the provincials whom they conquered, so that there the influence of Rome can be in part traced continuously from the days of Caesar to the present time, in the case of Britain, any influence that Rome has exercised on our history and institutions has been almost wholly indirect,--coming in at a far later time from the Continent of Europe.

In fact, the Roman occupation forms rather an episode in the history of our land, but not of our people, unless some of us be Welsh descendants of ancient Celts. The reason for this almost complete break with the past lies partly in the fact that Britain was less completely Romanized than Gaul or Spain, partly in the fact that in Britain the destructive work of the Teuton invaders was more complete than elsewhere; and this destruction in turn was partly due to the stubbornness of the resistance offered by the Romanized, or partly Romanized, Britons to the advancing Anglo-Saxon. Consequently there was but little peaceful assimilation of conquerors to conquered. Just how far it is true to say that the old RomanBritish civilization was completely destroyed is a question still in dispute. Some have thought that faint traces of the Roman land system are to be found in the later English manor; and again, that the Celtic population was not driven wholly into the West. The towns were almost all destroyed with fire and sword, some never to revive. But in others a few may have returned to dwell amid the ruins, and the place names survived or revived in modified forms (e.g., Lincoln, Chester, Manchester, London, Caerleon).

In spite, however, of this gap in history, Britain as a Roman Province presents some features of interest to the student of comparative politics. There are points both of similarity and difference between the Roman occupation and development of that country and the work that has been done in India, and is going on elsewhere in Asia and Africa, where the nations of Europe are taking in hand less civilized peoples and imposing their own systems for better or worse upon them. (Cf. Dr. James Bryce, Essay on Roman and British Empires.)

When Julius Caesar landed in Britain in B.C. 55, the tribes of Britain in the north and west were in a backward condition, but in the Southeastern half of the Island, where the people were akin to their neighbours on the Continent, a certain degree of civilization had been attained, and the process of development continued during the next 100 years. The political organization was tribal in character, the tribes being controlled by native princes or aristocracies. The main effect of the expeditions of B.C. 55 and 54 was that Rome asserted the right to prevent Britain from affording a refuge for malcontents from Gaul, and becoming a source of danger to the peace of the newly-conquered Gallic provinces. And, after this date, Roman influences were spreading in the island both politically and commercially. It was not, however, until 43 A.D., in the reign of Claudius, that the work of conquest was definitely taken in hand. The pretext for intervention was supplied by a disputed succession to what might almost be called the Empire of Cunobelinus (Cymbeline), King of the Trinobantes, in Essex, whose political influence extended over most of south-eastern Britain. The main reasons for the step were to be found, firstly, in the desire to secure once for all the safety and peace of Gaul, the extension of the frontier being regarded, as has often been the case since, as the best means of protecting it; secondly, in the consideration of the resources of the island, which were known and thought " worth developing." In the Roman writers we do not hear much of economic causes of political and military events, but it is clear that the business man often preceded as well as followed the Roman legionary, -a fact which has found its parallel frequently in modern times.

From 43 onwards the work of conquest and organization proceded steadily with one serious check, the revolt of the Iceni of Norfolk. Just as has been done by the British in India, the Romans would sometimes leave a district under a native sovereign subject to Imperial suzerainty (e.g., the Herods). In the west this policy was adopted less frequently than in the east, but Prasutagus, King of the Iceni, seems to have occupied some such position as the ruler of a protected State. On his death, with the failure of male heirs, he left his kingdom to be shared between his Queen, Boadicea, and the Roman Emperor. The oppression of the military and political officials and the exactions of the Roman financiers (living in Rome), led to an outbreak on the part of the Iceni, which soon threatened nearly the whole of the south-eastern portion of the Island, and was only suppressed after fearful losses.

For a time the Romans tried to conquer the whole Island, and the farthest point north reached was in the Grampian Mountains, where Agricola defeated the Caledonians in 84 A.D. Eventually this forward policy was abandoned, and the frontier fixed at a line between the Forth and Clyde, though the hold over the south of Scotland was never very secure. Wales, too, was not completely subdued, but held in control by legions posted on the Welsh Marches. Some hold that the decision was unwise, and that later trouble might have been avoided had the tribes been conquered once for all. Possibly we must look to financial considerations as the explanation.

About 120 A.D. the Emperor Hadrian, the great organizer of the frontier defences of the Empire, visited the Island, and with his name is connected the famous Wall from the mouth of the Tyne to the Solway; and some years later Antoninus Pius, his successor, fixed the frontier by building an earthen rampart across the Isthmus of Scotland.

The history of the Province was comparatively uneventful, but as a frontier province it was of some military importance; three legions and a large number of auxiliary troops were permanently quartered there, and these gave their commander no small power. The Empire of Caesar and Augustus was a military despotism. The advantages of the system at the time were obvious; law and order were maintained with a strong hand, and consequently such peace and prosperity flourished as had not been known in the latter days of the Roman Republic. On the other hand, since the Empire was not in theory hereditary, there was always the danger of an armed struggle for the succession between the commanders of the great armies posted in different parts of the Empire. Hence the alternation of periods of anarchy and civil war with generally longer periods of a well ordered and peaceful administration. More than once competitors for the Imperial throne started from Britain at the head of the troops there stationed, the most famous of whom was Constantine. It was from the City of Eboracum (York) that he set out on the career which culminated in his founding, as sole Emperor, Constantinople, in 33o A.D.

During the fourth century, after Constantine, the Empire fell on evil days, partly owing to internal dissensions, partly to renewed barbarian invasions, partly to growing financial weakness. It became increasingly harder to keep in touch with the remoter provinces (a danger which Britain need not fear now, so long as the command of the sea is held). Consequently the Romans gradually lost ground in Britain, while the inroads of Picts and Scots from the north and west, and the Saxon pirates from the south and east, recurred with greater frequency, till finally the province was definitely abandoned in 410.

It is important, however, to remember that, except during these last years, and for occasional short periods before, Britain enjoyed complete peace and security. Of course, just as in India today, the rule of the Province was military in character. The Emperor's Legate was primarily the commander of the troops, but this military character was only apparent in the north and west. To protect the Welsh borders and hold in awe the tribes of the west, one legion was stationed at Isca Silurum (Caerleon), another at Deva (the great Camp, Castra, Chester); in the north at York, the governor's headquarters and the Capital of the Province, was another legion; while posted along the two north walls were numerous auxiliary troops. Antonine's wall was strictly a frontier barrier; the southern wall between Newcastle and Carlisle was rather a huge permanent camp, serving as a second line of defence and controlling the districts to the north and south of it. Along the 75 miles of its length were 15 or 16 large stations, some of which, like the military cantonments in India, formed the nucleus of fair-sized towns. Between them at every mile were forts or mile-castles, and between these again, at about every quarter mile, were turrets; in front ran a deep trench, except where the wall passed along the edge of a precipice. South of the wall, and running parallel to its entire length, were a series of earthworks, while between ran a military road, enabling the troops to concentrate rapidly on a given point. Over the north Tyne was a strongly fortified bridge, of which traces can be seen to this day.

Economical farmers have used the Wall as a quarry for centuries since, but the fragments left suffice to give an idea of the thoroughness of the work done by the Romans, a quality which Englishmen have ever admired and sought with varying success to imitate. As an instance of failure to imitate, Dr. C. Bruce, the great authority on the Roman wall, in a lecture on the use of archaeology given at the time when the Crimean War was being fought, pointed out that those responsible for the mismanagement of the Crimea might well have drawn a lesson from the study of the Roman remains in the north. He showed how the Romans took every precaution to make a position secure; how complete was their equipment; how well their communications were maintained; how they chose the best sites for their camps, temporary or permanent; how careful they were as to the sanitation of these camps, securing a pure water supply from within or without by aqueducts scientifically laid. The Wall was guarded by auxiliary troops, drawn according to Roman custom, as a means of uniting the Empire, from all parts; while British levies would be serving in the east or south of Europe, or even in Asia and Africa; in Northumberland we can trace the presence of Gauls, Thracians, Dacians, and Spaniards. Similarly in our day the suggestion has been put forward, whether wisely or not, of an interchange of troops and officers between different parts of the British Empire.

Connected with the military tenure of the country was the splendid road system of the Romans. Just as today the conquest and safe-holding of a territory depend largely upon the roads and railways, so the first thing the Romans did to secure a country was to build good roads through it, primarily to obtain rapid transit and intercommunication between troops (so some of the railways in India are primarily strategic); secondly, to open up the land and prepare it for the development of civilization. They then became the great transportation routes; many of them, passing along the lines taken by modern railways, converged on London, which soon became an important city (especially as it was also the first landing place on the Estuary of the Thames). They then passed on to the south-east coast, to the ports of Rutupiae, Lemanis, and Dubrae. They were made with characteristic thoroughness, and it has been said, probably with truth, that England had better roads during the first three centuries than ever after till the opening of the nineteenth. Remains of these roads can be seen everywhere, and parts are still in use. In the south-eastern half of the country, to judge from the remains, many of the towns were walled and fortified (e.g., Leicester, Colchester, Silchester and London), but in most instances perhaps, not till towards the end of the period of occupation, when not even the south was secure. For a long time it would seem that they stood in no need of such defences; the conquest once complete, within the barrier maintained by the armies on the west and north the land enjoyed peace and security. While in many parts the forests remained unbroken and the fens reached over wide areas (e.g., Sussex, the Thames Estuary, Sedgemoor), elsewhere the country became settled and fairly, well populated, perhaps to the extent of about 1,000,000 inhabitants.

As to the different elements composing this so-called Roman-British population and their relative proportions, one cannot speak precisely. It was certainly " mixed." The troops were drawn from all parts of the Empire, and many of the men on discharge must have settled in the country and married native women. Provincials from the Continent, especially from Gaul availing themselves of business openings, made their homes there. As to the native British, in some parts members of the class that had formerly enjoyed wealth, power and position, seem to have been allowed to hold their own. This was in keeping with Roman policy, as with the British in India. But no doubt a large number of natives remained in or sank down to the position of serfs or even ' slaves. When we speak of the prosperity of Roman Provinces it is well to remember the presence there of a submerged fraction of the population, and that more than a tenth. There were not very many Romans or Italians. Perhaps the Governor and his staff were generally such, but not always. In an empire where already in the second century even the Imperial throne had been reached by two Spaniards, Trajan and Hadrian, where the citizenship and all its opportunities were thrown open to numerous and eventually to all provincials, the idea as well as the fact of a distinct Roman or Italian governing race became more or less obsolete, and the sense of a common citizenship developed rapidly; the enemy of one day was proud to receive the title of "Civis Roman"--us the next.

In this wise comprehensiveness we can see a resemblance between the Roman Empire and our own (e.g., Canada and South Africa). In some respects the assimilation between conquerors and conquered was more marked in the earlier than the later Empire. Like India today, Britain was held by the power of the sword, and ultimately controlled from headquarters, but the government and administration of the Roman dependencies did not lie so exclusively in the hands of a single ruling class and nationality as is the case in India. There, while natives are largely employed in subordinate posts of the civil and military services, the higher administrative positions are held exclusively by Englishmen. In the Roman Empire the highest posts were open to all, irrespective of their birth and nationality. Of course, there are reasons for this difference. In India, this exclusive policy has been partly necessitated by the great diversity of race and religion and social tradition existing among the native peoples, by peculiarities of racial character, by difference of "colour" between the Anglo-Saxon and the Hindoo. On the other hand, in the Roman Empire this assimilation between the conquering race and the conquered provincials seems to have been more complete than is ever likely to be the case in India, considering the climatic, racial, religious, and political and social differences which separate the Briton from the East Indian. As we know, difficulties have arisen in the past in India from this mutual separation, and are still present, difficulties which will call forth all the resources of British statesmanship to solve.

Britain seems to have become fairly well Romanized, not, perhaps, to the extent that Gaul and Spain were, but certainly in its material aspects the civilization of the province was Roman in character. Roman influences sank deep down through different social strata; it was not a case of a small alien upper class living amidst a population where native characteristics alone prevailed. As has been said, the administration of the Province was military in character. With one important exception, popular institutions, as we know them, hardly existed. There was no representative system. The military, "legatus Caesaris" was supreme and responsible only to the Emperor. In addition to his military duties, he exercised supervision over the civil administration; in his Court he dealt with the more important cases, civil and criminal. Imperial officials saw to the collection of taxes, mainly drawn from the land and its produce, part of the proceeds going to the maintenance of administration in the Provinces, part to the Imperial exchequer. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, the attainment of the citizenship and the career oven to the talents lay within the grasp of almost any provincial of ability and ambition. The exception to the general statement just made as to popular institutions, is to be found in the municipal autonomy enjoyed by the towns and cities.

It has been well said, that if Rome extinguished the nationality, she encouraged the growth of the municipality; and the Romanization of the Province is well illustrated by the fact that everywhere municipalities framed after the Roman pattern and at the same time consisting of populations mainly native, grew and flourished under Imperial rule. The same experiment has been tried in India, but owing to peculiar conditions with less marked success. Amongst the ruins of Silchester (Calleva Atrebatum in Hants) and other towns can be traced the Forum in the centre of the city, on which the four main roads converged; around it . were arranged shops and offices. Close to it is the basilica, with its apse built for the tribunal of justice; near by are the public baths; outside the walls are the amphitheatre and the cemetery. The houses are built to some extent on the Roman plan, but adapted to suit climatic conditions, being fitted with an elaborate hot-air system. Each town had its miniature Senate and its magistrates, generally two in number, as the Roman consuls. Subject to the general control of the Provincial governor and his staff, each enjoyed local autonomy, administration of their own affairs lying in the hands of the citizens.

The names of a few of these towns may be mentioned: Isca (Exeter), Porcbester, Anderida (Pevensey), Dubrae (Dover), Londinium, Calleva (Silchester), Aquae Sulis (Bath), Glerum (Gloucester), Camulodunum (Colchester). Verulamium (St. Albans), Deva (Chester), Mancunium (Manchester), Lindum (Lincoln), Eboracum (York), Pons Aelii (Newcastle), all being connected by good roads. In these towns there was also some industrial life; beyond providing for local needs, it is true that not much in the way of manufacturing was done, articles of finer make being imported from the workshops of large firms in Gaul and Italy; but traces of dye works and of a silver refinery have been found; in Northants and Kent there are the remains of extensive potteries. At Bath a modern feature has been discovered in the shape of an advertisement for a patent medicine for the eyes.

Country life, too, had its attractions, as witnessed by the remains of villas which are to be seen all over the country from Brading in the Isle of Wight, to Woodchester in Gloucestershire, and Aldborough in Yorkshire; lying, too, in comparatively secluded and unprotected districts, they are a witness to the security enjoyed by the province. Many of these villas must have been the centres of considerable estates on which agriculture was developed. On the demand of the Imperial authorities, or in return for importations of nianufactured goods, strange as it sounds today, "Food-stuffs and raw materials" were exported in large quantities. As the Imperial revenues were derived mainly from the land, agriculture was encouraged and large areas were under cultivation. In the fourth century we read that the armies of the Rhine were supplied with corn from Britain. There were large forest districts (e.g., in Sussex) from which quantities of timber were drawn; and more important still was the mineral wealth of the land. Tin was brought from Cornwall even before the Roman conquest. In Shropshire and Derbyshire are still to be seen the remains of the workings in lead mines, some owned and worked by the Imperial Government, others leased to private individuals. Iron was found in the north, in Somerset and Gloucestershire, and above all in Sussex. The possibilities of the "Black Country," however, do not seem to have been discovered. Silver and gold were found, but in small quantities, and also coal to a slight extent. Of course, viewed from a modern standpoint, these mining operations could hardly be counted among the industries of the people. They were mostly owned by the Government, and worked by the forced labour of slaves and convicts: but in estimating the economic importance of the province to the Empire, they cannot well be left out of account. A passing mention may be made of the fisheries, of the oyster beds of Richborough (not far from Whitstable), and of the British pearl industry of which Roman writers speak.

The remains of houses in town and country indicate the prosperity of at least a portion of the people. The mosaic pavements, the pottery and plastic fragments, all tend to show that to material prosperity was added a fairly high degree of culture and refinement in this provincial society. When we consider that this civilization flourished for well over three centuries, we may admit the benefits conferred by Rome on our British forerunners. This political and social system had its defects, and was fated to pass away; so that the work of building up civilization had to be begun anew,--on what has happily proved a better and surer foundation. But while it lasted the Romans did a work worthy of the ideal sketched by Rome's national poet: "Others I ween shall fashion better the breathing brass, and from marble shape the living countenance; plead causes better, and tell of the rising stars. To rule the nations, to lay on them the law of peace, to spare the humble, and crush the proud: These, Roman, shall be thine arts." And Rome must have inspired in all her children an enthusiasm which has found an interpreter in our own poet, Rudyard Kipling, in his British-Roman Song

Crowned by all Time, all Art, all Might,
The equal work of Gods and Man;
City, beneath whose oldest height
The Race began!
Soon to send forth again a brood,
Unshakeable, we pray, that clings
To Rome's thrice hammered hardihood-
In arduous things.
Strong heart with triple armour bound,
Beat strongly, for thy life blood runs,
Age after age, the Empire round,
In us thy sons.

Such, too, is the ideal and such the enthusiasm of the Briton of today. I have given you mainly facts and but few reflections, but hope that mere record of these ancient facts may still be of interest to those who have made it their purpose to realize what Empire means; what are the duties and great responsibilities which attach to it.

The Rev. Dr. T. C. Street Macklem. Mr. Chairman: I am sure we have all enjoyed Professor Smith's paper very much indeed. It struck a note pleasant to all of us in the easy and pleasant manner in which he discoursed about places long familiar to us-to all of us by name, to many of us by having visited them; and enshrined in the hearts of all of us because they are the homes of our ancestors. I could almost wish that he had gone on and made use of all the time at his disposal and drawn out to some length the comparison between the Roman occupation of Britain and the British occupation of India and other parts of the Empire, but from what he has said it seems to me very instructive to note the obvious; namely, that the Roman Empire was built up to its wonderful strength partly by the readiness with which it accepted and assimilated native elements of strength wherever it went, and I take it that that is what the British Empire has done, and is doing, and that that is its great and solid and lasting foundation. Wherever the British flag flies, long life and continued glory to it, we all feel sure that there England and British rule will, lay hold of whatever is best to be found in the locality, in the customs and habits and manners of the people, and will seek, with wonderful patience, to eliminate that which is not consonant with British law and the better traditions of the British people. That is what we look for in British civilization and in the expansion of the British Empire. So long as that wise policy is continued I think we need not greatly fear the decline and fall of the British Empire. I was struck by the gentle subtlety and delicacy of the compliment paid in the opening pages of Professor Smith's paper to the solidity and enduring quality of the British Empire when he drew that contrast between the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, and the British Empire, which should never decline and fall, by saying that if he ventured to differ from that common saying he would point out that the decline of the Roman Empire was not so very rapid, after all!