Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Guerilla warfare
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 18th October 2007
the romans invaded in 55 54 bc
the britons were bashed in both invasions in any pitched battles - even when (54) the beach head was attacked when the main force was away
why did the Britons not conduct a guerilla warfare against the roman columns - spread out over miles of forest paths in country known to the britons - ambushes - night attacks - dawn attacks etc etc
was it not in the british phsyche to do sneaky beacky stuff ????
could history have been changed ???
st -
Message 2
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 18th October 2007
Hi stalteriisok,
Interesting question. In the first place the only source for these episodes is Caesar's Gallic Wars. I think that we can be fairly sure that we got a politician's view of the two episodes, which would not have included small scale British successes. I believe that there is still no definite archaeological evidence that these invasions, or perhaps reconnaissance in force would be a better term, even happened.
In the second place (unless you are sure you know different) we mustn't assume that the legions marched through forest paths. The East Sussex forest of Anderida is said to have been present in Roman times but much English woodland was felled in the Bronze Age. In open country a Roman legion should have been screened by cavalry and would have been a very tough nut to crack.
Finally we don't really know the political status of Iron Age polities in South East England. The Romans were masters of 'divide and conquer' and must have had some allies among the native British.
To be honest since Caesar withdrew his forces without any permanent occupation until 43 AD (except perhaps at Fishbourne) no better result from the British point of view could have been achieved even if the Romans had been annihilated to the last man. In fact Caesar might have considered it an obligation to avenge a signal defeat. I don't think that the future of Romano-British relations would have been significantly affected either way.
TP -
Message 3
Posted by scamander (U870981) on Friday, 19th October 2007
I may be generalising hugely but the Brits (I realise this term is anachronistic) did launch general attacks on Roman foraging parties etc etc.
I realise it's also a generalisation but the tribes facing Caesar did have a heroic ethos whic leant more to a macho confrontational style of warfare as opposed to anything else (think French knights at Agincourt) -
Message 4
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 19th October 2007
I could be wrong here, but doesn't geurilla warfare only wiork if the enemy respects the human fights of civilians? I suspect Caeser's response would border on genocidal for any tribe trying it (he did boast of killing over a million Gauls).
-
Message 5
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 19th October 2007
If we accept that Caesar's account is basically genuine then he was not, strictly speaking, "invading" Britain - or at least not with a view to taking up permanent residency. He was on a punitive mission to chastise those who he suspected were aiding Gallic tribes who opposed him. He also used the first "invasion" as an opportunity to spirit away some high-standing prisoners and hostages who he wished to dispose of outside of Gaul, where their depatch would have raised too many potential problems.
Given that this was the nature of the escapades, then only those tribes and those areas he targeted were probably even aware of his presence, and then if they were cute enough and not one of his primary targets, could even benefit politically from his presence as a sort of "loose cannon" in the neighbourhood. There are some grounds for believing that 54BC was indeed an attempt to consolidate and take over, but if so it ended ignominously for JC (his failure to give good reason why he withdrew or why he didn't return suggests he gave it up as a bad job and was content to settle for the prestige at home that he received from having ventured so far).
John Peddie, in writing about the later "invasion proper", supports the view that Caesar met sterner resistance than he ever admitted. Almost a century later the invading forces had prior knowledge of potential hotbeds of resistance that could have been gleaned from local intelligence, but given the instances where they were wrong, more likely from out-of-date intelligence accrued during Caesar's incursion. Whether this was guerilla-style resistance or not is not contemplated, but I would imagine not. It is more likely to have been stoutly defended territory that Caesar's troops chose to retreat from, circumvent, or even took on in battle and came away with a bloody nose (as Cicero once said Caesar hadn't had enough of). -
Message 6
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 19th October 2007
thanx all for the above
twinprobe
what was the mention of fishbourne - surely they didnt stay there for 100 yrs ?
not sure if it was forested land but the britons surely knew that they couldnt face the romans in open battle - they tried tho - bigbury medway etc
the only way we could have any sort of success was the short sharp attack at the invading force before they had time to consolidate the legions - re Russia in ww2 - he further they got from the landing site the better
we didnt - why ??
st -
Message 7
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 19th October 2007
Hi stalteriisok,
The problem with the fact that we know Claudius's army invaded in AD 43 is our tendency to make this date the terminus post quem for all Roman activity in Britain.
In reality there must have been continued contact between Britain and the Roman world after Julius Caesar's enterprise. Roman prestige items found their way into high status Iron Age burials, so there must have been trade. Displaced British kings had a habit of seeking 'political asylum' in Rome. Could Caligula's planned invasion have really ended with soldiers gathering sea-shells?
Excavations around Fishbourne has revealed a fragment of a Roman scabbard and also rectangular timber buildings, associated with Iron Age pottery thought to have an Augustan date. It is intriguing to speculate that this important site might have had a pre-invasion Roman military presence. It's not impossible. Chichester is within easy reach of the French coast and, as you will know, the local king Cogidubnus was later very friendly to Rome.
If you find this topic of interest may I recommend John Creighton's 'Britannia'? It discusses this fascinating period very fully.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 8
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 20th October 2007
Could Caligula's planned invasion have really ended with soldiers gathering sea-shells?Β
Didn't we have a detailed discussion about this a few weeks back - came to the conclusion that the 'sea-shells' were actually boats, or something? I'll have to see if I can find it. Wish there was a search function. -
Message 9
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 20th October 2007
Here we are:
No actual conclusions, although most agreed that there was more to it than Caligula being a loony. -
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 20th October 2007
Hi Anglo-Norman,
Many thanks for the link. I'm sorry I missed the discussion first time round, although in my defence I don't think the thread title gave much hint of the scholarship to come. I think I had better review Suetonius since everyone else shows such an impressive familiarity with the primary sources.
Thanks,
TP -
Message 11
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 20th October 2007
I notice there is a strange, but seemingly hugely popular, tendency to suggest that the historian in question had some connection with fatty tissue found around bovine and ovine kidneys. Even the august Wikipedia falls into the habit throughout its main article about the poor guy. He himself however tended to avoid signing himself "suet", preferring the much more dignified Roman name "Seutonius".
But Suet or Seut, TP, if you haven't read the guy yet there's a treat in store for you. -
Message 12
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 20th October 2007
Hi Nordmann,
And this from the man who calls Septimius Severus's son 'Commodius' in message 2 of the Marcus Aurelius thread! Yes, you really did, I've checked.
In Peter Salway's Roman Britain it is Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (and for that matter C. Suetonius Paulinus), and that's good enough for me.
I haven't read the good gentleman for 10 years, but I have a copy of Robert Graves's Penguin Classic translation. Now suppose you could take 10 Penguin classics to a desert island which would you choose?
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 13
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 20th October 2007
Yes, I managed an extra I in the poor sod's name, didn't I? At least I only did it once (and got his dad right, not attributing paternity to his successor).
The suet versus seut thing has been around for a long time. Non-English speakers seem to have no ambiguity about the name, but the suet version I've seen in books published in English over a hundred years ago.
I'd hate to have only ten Penguin classics. If it was only one however I reckon the choice might be easier. Pliny the Younger's Letters would be the book of choice for me (even if the translator insisted that some of the letters were sent to the suet person). As snapshots of Roman life at the time they are superb source material, and can transport the reader into the city of Trajan & Co with effortless ease. -
Message 14
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 20th October 2007
OK; neither of us is perfect! And we both enjoy reading about volcanoes.
TP -
Message 15
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 20th October 2007
hi twin probe
like the post re Fishbourne will investigate further
you are of course correct - in the 100 yrs there must have been some contact - and why not - it was a better life surely -
perhaps they were all 5th columnists lol - thats why we lost in 44ad
st -
Message 16
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 20th October 2007
Pliny the Elder was the amateur vulcanologist. And much undervalued wit as well - in his Natural History he mentions a man from Bologna who reputedly lived for 150 years. Pliny adds (in what would have been brackets today) - "at least we know he stopped paying his taxes after 150 years".
-
Message 17
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 20th October 2007
I fancy Pliny the Elder (Admiral we must call him) died in an eruption, and Pliny the Younger sat on a hill and wrote about it. In a sense I suppose they were both vulcanologists.
A particular type of eruption is still called 'Plinian'. I've always assumed that the younger Pliny was responsible for that.
TP -
Message 18
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 22nd October 2007
Hi TwinProbe,
Excavations around Fishbourne has revealed a fragment of a Roman scabbard and also rectangular timber buildings, associated with Iron Age pottery thought to have an Augustan date. It is intriguing to speculate that this important site might have had a pre-invasion Roman military presence. It's not impossible. Chichester is within easy reach of the French coast and, as you will know, the local king Cogidubnus was later very friendly to Rome.Β
Did the Romans have had any large "trading posts" (ummm... a la Marcus et Spencius) in friendly territory on the British Isles before AD43? If this was the case, would settlements have built up around them, in turn requiring/justifying a Roman military presence, (perhaps a small fort) or would protection be the responsibilty of the host king?
Cheers,
RF -
Message 19
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 22nd October 2007
Hi Nordmann,
The suet versus seut thing has been around for a long time. Non-English speakers seem to have no ambiguity about the name, but the suet version I've seen in books published in English over a hundred years ago.Β
I'm guilty as charged! But my (admittedly poor) excuse for "Suet" is I thought the first part of his name was pronounce "sway" and that "Seut" would be pronounced "See you". There again, I've always had a problem with writing Gary Lineker's former club as "Lester City"...
Ten Penguin Classics?
THE GOLDEN ASS - Apuleius
Genuinely laugh-out-loud funny in parts, and Cupid and Psyche is a lovely romance.
THE EROTIC POEMS - Ovid
The less said about why I'd take this one the better...
NATURAL HISTORY - Pliny
Often unintentionally lauhilarious in parts, but always a great read.
SATYRICON / THE APOCOLOCYNTOSIS - Petronius / Seneca
Mainly for the latter book and what it alledges the last words of Claudius were.
THE POEMS - Catullus
Because of his huge influence on the romantic writings of Dame Barbara Cartland.
THE EARLY HISTORY OF ROME - Livy (Books I-V)
Full of gripping stuff - the rape of Lucretia, Coriolanus and his Mum, Marcus Manlius (from hero to zero).
THE WAR WITH HANNIBAL - Livy (Books XXI-XXX)
Great read, lots of battles and worth it for that scene in Carthage with the rings of the Roman knights who fell at Cannae.
THE HISTORIES - Herodotus
For exactly the same reasons as Pliny.
Oh, and to round things off THE ILIAD and THE ODYSSEY by ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr.
Cheers,
RF
p.s. I'd also have to sneak in MAXIMS by La Rochefoucauld, but as it's quite a short book I'm sure I'd be able to find some way to hide it... -
Message 20
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 24th October 2007
To offer my opinion on the initial question, from the evidence, which is of course just the works of Julius Caesar, the Roman invasions of 54 and 55 BC were a failure. It would appear that the British tactics were enough to defeat the Romans, with some help from the weather.
If we assume that Caesar is putting a favourable spin on his account then it must have been pretty desperate for the Romans.
After the initial fighting Caesar states that the Britons left a force of 5,000 chariots to harass his forces, apparently they considered this enough to keep the Romans confined to the locality of their camps.
From Caesarβs writings it would appear that the Romans found it very hard to forage for food. This probably is because the Roman army at this time did not have a very large cavalry element to their organisation.
A mostly infantry force would have found it very difficult to have maintained patrols and foraging parties in the face of vastly superior enemy cavalry.
There was no need for the Britons to resort to guerrilla tactics, their tactics of harassment and mobility was enough.
This thread appears to be jumping from the Ceasarian invasions to the Claudian invasions.
The results of the two were very different, probably because the Roman army of 43 AD had a much larger cavalry element that could effectively screen the Roman infantry and protect the foraging parties.
There is also a reference to the Romans bringing elephants and camels with them in 43 AD, both of which can be effective in deterring enemy horses. -
Message 21
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 26th October 2007
englishvote
nice post - thank you
my thoughts are - in the first 2 invasions the english weather was the reason they scuttled back to gaul - the fleet was destroyed - but the brits were destroyed every time they fronted up the romans
even in 44ad the brits wanted to fight the romans - how much better would it have been if we had harassed them - re Napoleon in russia - scorched earth etc - rather than let them destroy us piecemeal ??
we fought them in hillforts etc - should have jumped on them in the woods lol
wasnt the elephant only brought over for Claudius triumphal match ??
st -
Message 22
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 26th October 2007
Hi stalteriisok,
Although I, as a lover of prehistory, welcome your use of 'we' to describe the people of the late pre-Roman Iron Age, you have to be a bit careful with 'the Brits' at this time.
There were then a cluster of Iron Age kingdoms, some of whom certainly welcomed the Roman invasions, probably on the basis of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. The great tribes of the Iceni and Brigantes were at least neutral, and probably mildly favourable, even if they later regretted their support.
The Roman army could never have dominated any province without considerable local support. particularly from native elites.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 23
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 27th October 2007
stalteriisok
I think Twinprobeβs message answer your question perfectly.
I would doubt there was any sense of βBritishnessβ within Iron Age Britain. It is doubtful if the majority of Britons would have even have considered themselves British.
The nations within Britain would have been the tribes, when one tribe was attacked it would not necessarily have been seen as a bad thing by their neighbours. So the Roman policy of divide and conquer was not really necessary because Britain was not a unified community at that time. In was already divided, and for many the Romans were preferable to the other tribes gaining power.
Also lowland Britain does not really other a good environment for guerrilla warfare, there are few places to hide.
Iron Age lowland Britain would not have been heavily wooded (see the excellent answers to my query about Anglo Saxon woodland), there are no mountains or large hill ranges. The marshes and fens would have offered some places for retreat but probably only for people who already lived within them.
The Romans had a much harder time subjugating upland Britain, namely present day Wales and the highlands of Scotland. These areas offered places of refuge and made any military action extremely difficult.
But most of all I think the people of lowland Britain had no real reason to resist the Romans once the initial battles had been fought. The tribal leaders who resisted were caught and executed by the Romans and the leaders who co-operated did very well out of the situation.
And the average British Iron Age farmer could carry on farming without too much interference, plus the Roman occupation open up new markets for the Britonβs to exploit.
So basically I would say there was no ongoing resistance of guerrilla type warfare because on the whole most of the population had no real grievance with being part of the Roman Empire. -
Message 24
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 27th October 2007
ST
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.