THE FLAVIANS & AGRICOLA
(History, archaeology, mapping infrastructure: urban settlement)

Background AD 61-96

AD 54-68 Nero

In the aftermath of the revolt by Boudicca in 61 there was quite a turnover of Roman staff! Seutonius Paulinus was replaced by Petronius Turpilianus as governor in AD61. After all the upheaval had been quietened down it seems that Turpilianus did nothing, more or less, for the next couple of years.

Maximus Trebellius (63-69)

Turpilanus' successor in AD63 was Maximus Trebellius who, also though a good choice of governor (not being a military man with vengeance on his mind), was also not very energetic in his six years, let's say. Perhaps this was what was needed after all, a period of calm compared with what had been going on in Rome. [In AD69 there was turmoil with the end of Caesar's line ending in Nero's suicide in 68. This year already saw three emperors in Rome: Galba, Otho and Vitellius each commanding different support from the Legions.] Trebellius not being an army man did not, however, carry the army with him in Britain and, suffering two mutinies and a lot of shuffling of bored Legions in his tenure of office, was ousted by Coelius (Legate Legio II) to be replaced by Vettius Bolanus after fleeing to Emperor Vitellius. Between AD61-69 there were some things done - new forts and so on but no great battles and the province was somehow neglected.

Vettius Bolanus (69-71)

AD69 - Four emperors (Galba, Otho, Vitellius & Vespasian) in one year! Vespasian begets the Flavian Dynasty.

AD 69-79 Vespasian

Vettius Bolanus arrived in AD69 under the emperorship of Vitellius and he too seemed a little inactive - the Legions in Britain were again restless while there was tumult in Rome as Vitellius and Vespasian  (remember him) tested the loyalty of the Legions and jostled for power. The Brigantes in Britain were not unaware of what was going on and began to take advantage of the situation. Voices from the past: Vespasian won the emperorship and the Legions switched to his side; in Britain the anger of Caratacus' (remember him too) surrender by Cartimandua upset her one time mate Venutius as she took another lover. There was a Brigantian rebellion as the Romans went to Cartimandua's aid. Bolanus was recalled to Rome and replaced by Petillius Cerealis in AD71.

Petillius Cerealis (71-74)

Cerealis (son-in-law of Vespasian) had to deal with the Brigantes; he was ruthless and headstrong, he attacked and overran many Brigantian strongholds. He had many battles, he was a seasoned soldier and not much archaeology remains from his time. It looks like he charged about the whole countryside of the North and Wales fighting in a blitzkrieg manner; and my guess is his soldiers loved it. His replacement was Iulius Frontius in AD74.

Iulius Frontius (74-77)

His work was in North Wales and the area west of the Pennines. He is responsible for the fort at Chester and probably at York too. Most of Wales and its tribes including the Silures were subdued but not pacified at this time.

AD 79-81Titus

Gnaeus Julius Agricola (78-84)

Gnaeus Iulius Agricola took over in the late summer of AD77. He was no stranger to Britain having been under Paullinus' command. Almost straight away he set off for the Ordovices to do battle and defeated them on their terms and then defeated and took the surrender of Anglesey in AD78(abandoned by Paulinus at the time of Boudicca). This was a great start for the modest Agricola's governorship. Over the next few years Agricola turns out to have a good, just man who dealt wisely with his charges but he also ranged all over Scotland, each year with a new campaign, he was a man who led from the front and earned the respect of his men. The whole country was conquered, as Tacitus recalls, but then let go after Legion II Adiutrix was recalled from Britannia in AD87 and returned to Rome.

AD 81-96 Domitian

Domitian, last of the Flavians, didn't care much for Agricola it appears.

 


Did Roman soldiers and settlers build towns
while bemused locals looked on?

This is what Tacitus in Agricola 21 writes on the subject: "

The following winter * was spent on schemes of the most salutary kind. To induce a people, hitherto scattered, uncivilized and therefore prone to fight, to grow pleasurably inured to peace and ease, Agricola gave private encouragement and official assistance to the building of temples, public squares and private mansions. He praised the keen and scolded the slack, and competition to gain honour from him was as effective as compulsion. Furthermore, he trained the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts and expressed a preference for British natural ability over the trained skill of the Gauls. The result was that in place of distaste for the Latin language came a passion to command it. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the Britons were gradually led on to the amenities that make vice agreeable arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets. They spoke of such novelties as 'civilization', when really they were only a feature of enslavement."  (*AD79-80)

I find this paragraph a fascinating one. This tract indicates that it was the Britons that did the construction, it was not the army. This must mean there must have been an easy route to "planning permission" J  and that there were monies available for building, remembering that the Brits now were at least one generation on from the Claudian invasion. The building could either have been by wealthy Romanised Britons or perhaps Roman settlers and merchants. The text also reveals his attitude towards us. Remember too that Agricola was very experienced man in 'our' ways having served some of his time in Britannia before under Vespasian.

At the site at Richborough there is evidence (a Corinthian capital) that masons were imported from Gaul and Italy for carving imported stone and the marble veneers that were attached to the triumphal arch Quadrifons built there. The army were responsible for their fort building though vis à vis  their complaints when building forts and garrisons instead fighting and collecting booty.

 


What are the basic requirements for a 'Roman town'?

Romans liked rectangles, when they built their towns the first thing they did was to lay out a rectangular grid - a street plan. Of course a large town, especially the civitas, needed as the minimum, a forum, a basilica, baths, temple and an amphitheatre. They ignored the local unplanned pre-Roman settlement buildings and I suppose demolished and built over them. In Canterbury though, didn't I read somewhere that one iron age hut was still standing in AD60? My logical guess is that in Canterbury the remnants of the Cantiaci that moved down from Bigberry would have built their settlement on the north west side of the Stour while it looks to me at least as if the main Roman site is to the south east. I may be mistaken. Of course, the one thing that Canterbury also lacks is a fort. We can assume that the Cantiaci by this time were so well Romanised that there was no need for a garrison at all but if needed a force of men was available from Richborough or Reculver.

 


Beginning to understand the shape of Roman Canterbury,
Rochester, etc. Are all towns the same?

 

Tacitus' Agricola Text - you may have the book but these e-versions are good for searching