Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis.  Permission is given for 
a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and 
private study only.  The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without 
the permission of the Author. 
 



The Ancient Britons and the Roman Invasions 55BC-
61AD: An Analysis of Tribal Resistance and 

Response. 

Carl Meredith Bradley B.A. (Hum). 

December 2003. 

A thesis submitted towards the degree of Master of Arts of Massey 
U Diversity. 



ABSTRACT. 

The aim of this thesis is to analyse the response to the Roman 

invasions of 55BC to 61AD from the tribal groupings of 

southern Britain. Much has been written of the activities of 

the Roman commanders and soldiers, but this thesis looks to 

analyse this period of invasion from the position of the tribes 

of southern Britain. 

The opening chapters will provide a descriptive account of 

the land and people who occupied southern Britain and a 

survey of tribal response to the Roman invasions. The 

reasons behind the differing responses to Rome will be 

offered with an analysis of th~ tribal politics that existed in 

southern Britain between Caesar's invasions of 55-54BC and 

the Claudian invasion of 43AD. 

Three case studies consider the central response to the 

Roman incursions. The first looks at the resistance offered to 

Caesar by the British warlord Cassivellaunus. The second 

case study highlights the initial response to Rome in 43AD 

by Caratacus and his brother Togodumnus. Following the 

initial fighting to stop the Roman invasion, Caratacus moved 

westward to carry on resistance to Rome in Wales. This 

thesis will follow those steps and will discuss the next stage 

of Caratacus' response. The third case study explores the 

Iceni revolt of 60AD under the warrior queen Boudicca. 

The case studies allow comparisons between three periods 

of military response. Analysis of these three case studies 

enables the identification of a British tribal style of fighting 

while discussing the successes and failures of these tactics. 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. 

No one person achieves anything without support from those around him or her. I 
have been extremely privileged by having immense support in this project. 

Firstly I wish to thank my partner Zenaida, who has been a tower of strength and 
amazing in her support of this project and me. I also thank our two daughters who 
have been driving forces in their own unique ways. 
I wish to extend gratitude to both my sets of parents, Joy and Alan Papprill, Richard 
and Jeannine Bradley and close family, who have always shown total support. 

I also extend respect and thanks to my supervisor, Dr John Tonkin-Covell. I give my 
appreciation to Dr Glyn Harper and General Piers Reid (Retired) for allowing me to 
explore warfare in Iron Age Britain. I would also like to thank Mr Rex Volkerling, Mr 
Paul Stichbury, Dr Jeff Sluka, Dr Chris Dixon, Mr Basil Poff and Dr Norman Austin 
for enthusiasm, encouragement and inspiration. 

Finally I thank (RSM, SP, GM, NC, ID, RMJM, DB, P&DH, MM, PW A, P&MB, 
NH) who have offered inspiration and support throughout. 



TABLE OF CONTENT. 

Introduction. 
Page 1. 

Chapter I. 
The Iron Age Culture of Southern Britain: 56BC-61AD. 

Page 11. 

Chapter II. 
British Tribal Response to Roman Invasion. 

Page 55. 

Chapter III. 
Cassivellaunus and the Response to Caesar's invasion of 54BC. 

Page 90. 

Chapter IV. 
Caratacus, Togodumnus and the War in the West. 

Page 109. 

Chapter V. 
The Boudiccan Revolt of 60AD. 

Page 145. 

Conclusion. 
Page 169. 

Bibliography. 
Page 179. 

• 



MAPS. 

Map 1. Tribal groupings in the First Century AD. 
Page 9. 

Map 2. Core, Periphery and Beyond ( or Outer) Economic Contact 
Zones. 

Page 22. 

Map 3. Settlement Patterns in Britain Around 150BC. 
Page 36. 

Map 4. Trade Contacts between Britain and the Continent 120BC-
43AD. 

Page 65. 

Map 5. The Extent of Caesar's Knowledge of British Tribal politics. 
Page 91. 

Map 6. The Expansion of the Catuvellauni. 
Page 112. 

Map 7. Battle of Medway, Phase 1. 
Page 118. 

Map 8. Battle of Medway, Phase 2. 
Page 121. 

Map 9. Battle of Medway, Phase 3. 
Page 124. 

Map 10. Southern Britain in the Claudio-Neronian Period. 
Page 146. 

Map 11. Boudicca's Last Stand. 
Page 159. 



INTRODUCTION 

'Not much of the summer was now left, and winter sets in 

early in these regions because all this side of Gaul faces 

north. Nevertheless I went ahead with plans for an 

expedition to Britain. I knew that in nearly all our 

campaigns in Gau~ help had come to the enemy from 

Britain.' Caesar. 1 

With these words Gaius Julius Caesar opened the chapter in 

his War Commentaries accounting for the first invasion of 

Britain. This incursion would bring the tribal peoples of 

Britain into contact with the Roman war machine. 

The aim of this thesis is to explore Iron Age British 

military response to Roman invasion. The period covered in 

this thesis is from 56BC, when British tribal warriors 

crossed the Channel to support Gallic tribes of Armorica in 

their resistance to Gaius Julius Caesar prior to his first move 

into Britain, and finishes in 60AD when, after seventeen 

years of Roman rule, the client kingdom of the Iceni and 

other tribes rose in revolt under the leadership of Boudicca. 

Between 56BC and 60AD the tribes of Britain went 

through a series of political and economic changes that had 

an impact on their ability to respond to Roman invasion. 

Caesar's moves into Gaul and his invasion of Britain in 

55BC is a point in history where British tribal response to 

Rome began. 

The military response to Caesar and then the tactics used 

against the Claudian invasion of 43AD are well attested and 

provide historical details from which to draw comparisons 

while identifying British tribal fighting styles. The rebellion 

of 60AD led by Boudicca also offers an example of Iron 

Age warfare used in Britain against the Roman 

administrative authority. 

1 



Caesar's observation that British warriors seemed to give 

aid to the Gauls in all his campaigns became one of the 

reasons for crossing the Channel, in an attempt to punish 

these British warriors while undertaking a reconnaissance of 

the western boundary of the known world. 2 

The prospect of warriors from Britain helping Gallic 

tribes highlights an environment of cross-Channel contact. 

This has given strength to the idea put forward by some 

scholars of pan-tribal/Celtic resistance to Rome and this 

assumption will be questioned within this thesis. 3 

Following Caesar' s raids and withdrawal, southeast 

Britain moved towards forms of statehood and powerful 

tribal dynasties emerged that dominated most of southeast 

Britain. By the middle of the first century AD, the Emperor 

Claudius launched a full-scale invasion of Britain, which 

was followed by the swift submission of the tribes in the 

southeast and the start of a process of Romanisation. 

Resistance to invasion continued in the west and in 60AD 

the province was rocked by a bloody revolt. The submission 

of this rebellion effectively ended resistance by Iron Age 

Britons in the southeast. 

The classical Roman historians dedicated much written 

text to the people who lived to the north of the Italian 

peninsula. Caesar wrote on the Iron Age Europeans that he 

came across as he invaded Gaul and Britain. The people he 

found there left no written history of their own and thus 

accounts of ancient western European history was written by 

Romans and Greeks who saw the Iron Age people of 

western Europe primarily as a military threat while also 

viewing their proximity to the classical world. 

Caesar's war commentaries are unique in the sense that 

they introduced written accounts of the Gallic and, more 

important to this thesis, the British styles of warfare from a 

Roman commander's perspective. The works of Cassius Dio 

2 



and Tacitus describe Britain at the time of the Claudian 

invasion and during the reign of Nero.4 Suetonius' work on 

the twelve Caesars gives an insight into the attitudes of the 

Romans and their rulers with regard to the people of Iron 

Age Britain, while highlighting events that shaped frontier 

policies in the west.5 

The scope of this thesis is to look at how the Iron Age 

people of Britain responded to Roman invasion and not how 

the Romans fought these tribal people on their western 

frontier. While one would expect a degree of bias from these 

classical writers, their accounts do provide insights into the 

tribal peoples and their attitudes at a time of invasion and 

conquest. The classical writers provide a base of primary 

sources for this thesis. 

Modem historical scholarship on Iron Age society have 

used other disciplines to gain a clearer understanding of 

ancient Britain while also enabling scholars to confirm or 

refute some of the long accepted classical accounts. 

Archaeological evidence and findings have been used in 

researching the topic and themes of this thesis. 

Prominent archaeologists such as Barry Cunliffe and John 

Wacher have provided a vast wealth of information on the 

period covered within this work along with other scholars in 

this field. Cunliffe, in his book Iron Age Communities in 

Britain, has given the field of Iron Age study an invaluable 

piece of work on the communities of this period.6 Wacher 

has done much work on Roman Britain and covers the period 

when the tribal groups fought to resist invasion. 7 

Historians in the fields of ancient and Celtic studies have 

also provided much useful material and analysis on the 

period, such as Peter Beresford Ellis, Lloyd and Jennifer 

Laing, Graham Webster, John Peddie, and Ian Richmond.8 

Webster in particular has done invaluable work on the 

invasion period and the resistance to Roman incursions. 

3 



Webster's three volume series, The Roman Invasion of 

Britain, Rome against Caratacus and Boudica: The British 

revolt against Rome AD60, provide a sound base on which 

to build the three case studies used in this thesis to analyse 

the Iron Age responses to the Roman invasions of 55 and 

54BC and 43AD. 9 

Peddie provided a historical and military complement to 

the works of Wacher and focused on the Roman army, the 

invasion and logistical element to the invasions undertaken 

by Caesar and then under Claudius. 10 Like Caesar, Peddie 

writes with the insight of a soldier. The discipline of 

historical geography and linguistics have also provided 

information in helping to create a clearer and broader picture 

of Iron Age Britain at the time of Roman invasion. 

For the purpose of this thesis the peoples of Iron Age 

Britain will be called Britons, or, when necessary, by their 

tribal names. The geographical area they lived in will be 

called Britain. These people lived in the areas of ancient 

Britain that are now modem Wales and the south and 

southeast of England. The northern border of this 

geographical area cuts from the Trent River across to the 

Mersey, down the western coast of Wales in the west and 

from the Trent in the east to Land's End. 

To begin with, there will be a brief survey of the British 

people prior to Caesar's raids and a look at the geo-political 

map of southeast Britain that evolved up to the invasion of 

43AD. The social fabric of the Britons will be discussed and 

its importance to their ability to wage war against the 

Romans. The social hierarchy and the roles members played 

within the tribal framework will also be discussed in the first 

chapter. 

The geographical environment was important for 

sustaining tribal populations and therefore equally important 

for the provision of warriors and the conduct of military 

4 



campaigns. The geographical environment is one of the 

constants of any theatre of war and had a huge impact on the 

way the Britons fought. The impact and its relationship to 

the style of tribal warfare used will be discussed. 

A brief survey of the physical make-up of the British 

warrior will be given to identify how Iron Age Britons 

fought and the equipment they used. This survey will draw 

on both classical accounts and the findings from 

archaeological excavations, while also looking at the images 

left on stone and bronze-work dedication plaques, coinage 

and monuments. 

Response to Roman invasion will be analysed on a tribe­

by-tribe basis while noting the existence of tribal 

confederations employed to resist Rome and to gauge the 

success or failure of such arrangements. This study will look 

at tribal resistance with a view to establishing the extent to 

which responses varied. The motivations and influencing 

factors such as tribal survival or economic necessity in tribal 

decision-making with regard to their response will be 

discussed and analysed, testing the notion of pan-tribal/Celtic 

resistance to Roman invasion. 

Much work has been done on the Romans and their quest 

for domination of the known world. Within this period, from 

the control of Italy and the Mediterranean to the conquest of 

Gaul and south eastern Britain, hundreds of independent 

tribal groups and peoples lived and their passing is often 

recorded with nothing more than a few lines in a classical 

account of a prominent Roman of the time. Other classical 

accounts are the words of writers who looked at the peoples 

of Iron Age Europe with distinctly Mediterranean and 

sometimes-hostile eyes. This thesis will seek to highlight 

Iron Age British military responses to the Roman invasion by 

analysing the events, actions and motivations of these tribal 

peoples. 

5 



The period between 56BC and 60AD was a time of 

conquest and resistance and three case studies will be used 

to explore, in more detail, British resistance to Roman 

invasion. The campaigns of Cassivellaunus in 54BC, 

Caratacus in 43-51AD and the Iceni revolt led by Boudicca 

in 60AD will be used to compare military response while 

also identifying military tactics and leadership qualities and 

fighting style. 

The first case study looks at Cassivellaunus who led a 

tribal confederation of Britons against Caesar in 54BC and 

classical accounts have left much that can be scrutinised to 

show the fighting style of the tribal warriors and 

Cassivellaunus' leadership. This first case study will explore 

the use of the natural surroundings by Cassivellaunus while 

identifying his method of war and response, with some focus 

on the use of the chariot and deployment. The accounts 

Caesar left of his raids into Britain will be drawn on while 

also considering archaeological evidence and the work of 

ancient, Iron Age and Celtic scholars to research this period 

of initial Roman military contact and response. 

The second case study has two components; the first 

covers the invasion of 43AD and the tribal responses to it 

under the leadership of Caratacus and his brother 

Togodumnus. The second follows the campaign of 

Caratacus who was forced into the west after the quick fall 

of the southeast to the Romans. Webster's works on this 

period will be utilised, along with analysis of the classical 

writers. Tacitus, Cassius Dio and Suetonius will be referred 

to in covering the second phase of Britain's incorporation 

into the Roman Empire. 

In this second case study, the first component begins with 

a brief introduction to the gee-political map of southeastem 

Britain with particular reference to the Catuvellauni. It will 

also provide some detailed observations on the dynastic 

6 



politics of the Catuvellaunian chief, Cunobelin and the 

resistance offered by his two sons Caratacus and 

Togodumnus. Analysis of the tactics used by these two chiefs 

will be followed by an account of their defence of the river 

Medway and the problems of leading a confederated tribal 

army. 

The second part traces Caratacus' retreat to the west and 

his further resistance that drew the Welsh tribes into military 

contact with the Roman invaders. An analysis of Caratacus' 

fighting style will be followed by a summing up of his 

successes and failures. 

The third case study deals with the Iceni revolt of 60AD 

that saw the Roman province attacked by a confederation of 

tribal war bands under the Icenian queen Boudicca. The 

background and reasons for the revolt will be discussed 

along with the series of events that unfolded. The tactics 

used and their successes and failures will be analysed while 

a survey of the effect the revolt had on the province will be 

given. 

Again, Tacitus and Dio have left accounts of the 

Boudiccan revolt, which provide contemporary commentary 

on an event that shook the new Roman province. Their 

accounts assist in establishing the nature of the military 

response by the various tribal groups during the last stage of 

the Roman invasion and stabilisation of the southeast. The 

tactics used in 60AD and the final battle that drew the 

Boudiccan revolt to a close will be compared with the tactics 

and fighting styles of the previous case studies. This will 

provide comparisons to determine whether there was a 

continuation and development of British tactical skill, or a 

departure from what had gone before. 

The conclusion will analyse the period of resistance to 

Roman invasion. It will present the findings of the questions 

raised in this thesis, while identifying commonality or 

7 



differences in the responses, attitudes and motivations in 

dealing with the Roman invasion of Britain. The conclusion 

will attempt to identify a common fighting style within the 

tribal armies and leadership. 

Using the accounts of classical scholars is problematic as 

their views were those of outsiders concerning the social 

functions and activities of the tribal peoples of Iron Age 

Britain. With the aid of archaeology and historical 

geography however, these classical sources are useful 

starting points from which to begin analysis of tribal 

response to military attacks from without. 

Caesar's account of his raids on Britain provides its first 

recorded military leader in Cassivellaunus; it also gives first 

hand information on the socio-political make-up of southeast 

Britain. Archaeological evidence has supported a lot of what 

Caesar wrote and has influenced scholarship up to the 

present time. 

8 



0 50 100 150 200 

kilometres 

Map I.Tribes of Britain in the first century AD. (From B. Jones 
& D. Mattingly. An Atlas of Roman Britain. London. Basil 
Blackwell Ltd.1990 p 45.) 

9 



Reference Notes. lntrcxluction. 

1 Caesar. War Commentaries of Caesar. Translated by R, Warner. New York, Mentor 
Books. 1960, Book IV, 2. 

2 ibid. 

3 Some scholarship uses emotive language to offer reasons of kin-ties to explain the 
presence of British warriors fighting in Gaul. See P. B. Ellis Caesar' s Invasion of Britain. 
London, Orbis Publishing. 1978 p. 10. Peddie refers to the Gauls as 'continental cousins' 
See J. Peddie Conquest: The Roman Invasion of Britain. Gloucestershire, Alan Sutton 
Publishing Ltd. 1997, p. 4. 

4 See, for example C. Dio Dio 's Roman History: Volume I- VIII. London, William 
Heinemann Ltd. 1961. Tacitus. The Annals and the Histories. Translated by A.J. Church & 
W.J. Brodribb. New York, Washington Square Press. 1964. 

5 G. Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. Translated by R. Graves. London, Penguin Group. 
1979. 

6 B. Cwtliffe. Iron Age Communities in Britain: An Account of England, Scotland and 
Wales from the Seventh Century BC until the Roman Conquest. London, Routledge & 
Kegan Paul Ltd.1975. Cunliffe has released moce works on this period. See Bibliography 
for a full listing of his other works. 

7 J. Wacher. The Coming of Rome. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. 1979. See 
Bibliography for a full listing of his works. 

8 See secondary sources in this work's bibliography. 

9 G. Webster. Rome against Caratacus. London, B.T.Batsford Ltd. 1981. The Roman 
Invasion of Britain. New Jersey, Barnes & Noble Books. 1980. Boudica: The British Revolt 
against Rome AD60. London, B.T.Batsford Ltd. 1978. See Bibliography for a full listing of 
his works. 

10 Peddie. 1997. 

10 



CHAPTER I 

THE IRON AGE CULTURE OF SOUTHERN BRITAIN 

55BC TO 61 AD. 

'The interior of Britain is inhabited by people who claim, 

on the strength of their own tradition, to be indigenous. The 

coastal areas are inhabited by invaders who crossed from 

Belgium for the sake of plunder and then, when the 

fighting was over, settled there and began to work the land.' 

Caesar. 1 

To understand British Iron Age military responses to Roman 

invasion between 55BC and 61AD, it is important to look at 

the Iron Age culture and the people who lived in Britain. 

This chapter will consider the Iron Age people 

geographically, their social and political structure, their 

economy, their attitude to war and the way in which they 

fought. 

The Iron-age inhabitants of western Europe (modem 

France and Belgium) and Britain were separated groupings 

of people defined along both ethnic and cultural lines. The 

British Isles evolved within the framework of the European 

Iron Age and constituted the final destination for the 

westward movement of peoples and political and 

technological ideas from the continent. The western 

European Iron Age (from 700BC-43AD approximately) 

followed the Later Bronze Age (from 900BC). 2 Bronze Age 

technology and design however, remained strong in Britain 

well into the Iron Age. By the first century BC the Britons 

shared an Iron Age culture, elements of which were seen 

across most of Europe. 3 

This culture has been called Celtic and defined by the 

cultural traditions of technological change and artistic style 

11 



characterised by the Hallstatt ( 1200-4 7 SBC) and La Tene 

periods (500BC-lst century AD).4 The Hallstatt period 

embraced late Bronze Age and early Iron Age Europe 

(including non-Celtic peoples) while the La Tene period 

carried through from the early Iron Age to the Roman Iron 

Age (distinctly Celtic). 5 

Linguistic evidence points strongly to the Danube as the 

origins of Celtic-speaking peoples. Ellis notes that there is 'a 

strong continuation of Celtic place-names in this area, which 

weakens as one radiates from its central point. '6 He then 

suggests that the Celtic people of this area were an aboriginal 

population. By the sixth century much of Europe had been 

'Celtized', that is, they spoke a form of Celtic the language 

family. 7 

Hallstatt and La Tene innovations seen in art design and 

decoration, reached the British Isles. These can be seen in the 

numerous archaeological finds and sites across Britain. 8 The 

Iron Age people of Britain maintained a degree of insularity 

and a continuation of culture that was enhanced by the 

Hallstatt and La Tene innovations, not replaced by them. The 

people of Iron Age Britain shared cultural and technological 

commonality with their European neighbours while 

developing regional variations known as 'insular La Tene'.9 

At the height of the Bronze and Iron Ages there was an 

expansion of Hallstatt and then La Tene culture. This 

stretched from the western isles of Britain through France, 

Switzerland and along the Danube and east into central Asia 

Minor (modern Turkey), from Spain in the south to Belgium 

in the north. Hallstatt and La Tene fashions were common 

yet there was much regional variation. 

Regional variations also existed with regards to the 

languages spoken and the people of Iron Age Britain spoke 

forms of Celtic. This was a branch of the Inda-European 

language group referred to as 'insular Celtic' .10 In the British 

12 



Isles today there exist continuations of these ancient Celtic 

languages. They are broken up into two distinct groups, 

Goidelic and Brythonic. Irish/Scots Gaelic and Manx 

represent Goidelic Celtic, while the Brythonic branches are 

heard in Welsh and Comish. 11 

Linguistic and historical scholars believe that the 

languages spoken by the tribal groupings in Wales and the 

southeast of Britain on the eve of Roman invasion were 

variations of Brythonic dialects. These evolved into modern 

day Welsh, Comish and Breton. 12 

At the time of Caesar' s invasions, the people of Britain, 

while having a shared linguistic tradition, showed much 

ethnic diversity. Gaul and the Iberian Peninsula have been 

identified as points of origin or pathways for westward 

moving people who would have found other migrant and 

indigenous people occupying Britain when they arrived. 13 

These waves of migration would have added to the ethnic 

mix of the people in Britain. 

One element in the ethnic mix within Iron Age Britain 

was the Belgic origin of, and influence over, some of the 

tribes in southeast Britain. The Belgic element had come 

across the Channel from Gaul and their influence can be 

divided into three areas: those who were definitely Belgic, 

those who were not, and those whose Belgic or earlier origin 

is unclear. 

The tribes who definitely fell outside the area of Belgic 

influence were the Welsh who appear to have had more in 

common with those of Ireland and the Cornish peninsula, 

than southeast Britain and Gaul The Durotriges, Dumnonii, 

Dobunni, and the Coritani were also of non-Belgic origin. 

These tribes had minimal contact through trade with 

southeastem Britain, however they maintained cultural and 

political development outside of Belgic influence. The 

Dumnonii and their Durotrige neighbours however saw 

13 



groups of Armorican ( continental) refugees entering their 

lands after 56BC and seem to have absorbed them. 14 

Peoples of Belgic origin crossed from Gaul to Britain in 

the first century BC, as Caesar wrote, to raid and then stay, 

and evidence in coins, pottery and burials point to Gallic 

migrations from as early as 150BC. 15 The size of these 

migrations has been debated and new research and 

excavations have shown that some of the earlier assumptions 

are being readdressed. Some British traditions, that were 

originally thought to have been rooted in the Iron Age, have 

their origins in the Bronze Age, while some Belgic traditions 

have post 54BC and 43AD beginnings. 16 

There was, however, in the southeast an integration of 

Gallic and British elites who sought to carve out power bases 

that developed into the larger tribal groupings that were the 

approximate political tribal boundaries of Iron Age Britain at 

the time of the Roman invasion. 17 Whether there was large 

tribal invasion or small-scale elite migration, Belgic 

influence in Britain clearly existed and an obvious example 

was the tribal grouping of the Atrebates. 

Commius was a continental Atrebatic chief who played an 

interesting role in the dealings of Caesar in Britain and seems 

to have moved between Gaul and Britain with relative ease 

(as he did in his allegiance to the Romans) without losing 

any of his tribal standing or authority. The Atrebates 

represent a large-scale migration of peoples from the 

continent at the time of Caesar's invasion of Gaul and were 

enhanced by the arrival of Commius after 52BC. 18 There 

were Atrebate tribal groupings on both sides of the Channel 

and Caesar noted Commius' movement between, and 

authority over, the two.19 

If there were other recent Belgic groupings in Britain prior 

to 43AD then there would have been more cases of mass 

migration across southeastem Britain represented in the 

14 



sharing of tribal names across the Channel. Outside the area 

of study on the eastern flank of the Brigantes for example, 

lived the Parisi whose tribal name was shared with the Gallic 

Parisi of the Seine Valley. 20 The Atrebates and the Parisi are 

the only known examples of this. 

Two factions of the Atrebate tribal groupings were the 

Regni and Belgae. The Regni was the Roman name given to 

the southern Atrebates after 43AD and represented a post­

conquest political civitas ruled by the pro-Roman 

Cogidubnus.21 The Belgae had continental origins and 

represent a western faction of the Atrebates that showed 

hostility to Rome even after the campaign of Vespasian in 

43AD and may have been the second tribe that submitted to 

the commander of the II legion.22 

The Belgae did not exist as a tribe in Gaul, but Caesar did 

list them as a grouping of tribes when describing the people 

of Gaul. He wrote that 'Gaul consists of three separate parts, 

one of which is inhabited by the Belgae, one by the Aquitani, 

and one by the people whom we call "Gauls". 23 

The arrival of the Belgae in the lands of the Atrebate may 

have increased the fighting strength of that tribe, attested to 

by their economic rise as a counter to the Catuvellauni, and 

provided motivation for the Durotriges to the west to 

refortify their hill forts to defend against this new folk on 

their border. 

Continental contact was strong between the Durotriges 

and some Amorican tribes such as the Veneti, the 

Coriosolites, the Osismii, the Baiocasses and the 

Abrincatui 24 Evidence of trade goods and the adoption of 

military tactics, discussed below, suggests this. Yet this tribe 

resisted any influence from Belgic elements and developed 

their own strong native tradition between the invasions of 

Caesar and Claudius. 

15 



The eastern Durotrigian border (the Avon River) 

appeared to have been the western most point of Belgic 

expansion and conflict across this border could have 

represented a strong tribal and ethnic division. It is an 

assumption that the Durotriges and the newly arrived 

Belgae/ Atrebatic tribal grouping may have seen each other as 

culturally different and as a military threat to each other's 

tribal autonomy. 

The southeastern Cantiaci of Kent were geographically 

closer to the continent and thus one of the first obvious 

contacts for any people migrating from Gaul The 

distribution of Gallo-Belgic coinage in the area of the 

Cantiaci begins from around 150BC and carried on down to 

the mid-fifties BC.25 This corresponds with historical 

linkages in trade to the continent, be it goods, mercenaries, 

ideas or technology. The close proximity to the continent 

may have caused problems in creating a centralised power 

base. Piracy activities and the continued movement of people 

may have equally disrupted any moves towards 

centralisation, like that seen north of the Thames. 

The lands of the Iceni on the eastern coast of Britain 

would also have been a prime-landing place for northern 

Belgic immigrants. Belgic origins of the Iceni have been 

traced to the people of Belgium and Holland who migrated to 

Britain around 500BC, with the further migration of a 

warrior elite in 150BC. 26 

To what degree the Iceni were Belgic by 43AD is not 

clear, however Frere believes that if not wholly Belgic they 

were at least ruled by a semi-Belgic elite at that time. 27 The 

Iceni were a wealthy tribe who remained detached from the 

resistance to Rome in 55 and 54BC or during the Roman 

invasion of 43AD, rallying to neither Belgic nor non-Belgic 

neighbours in response to Rome's moves into Britain. 

16 



The Catuvellauni and Trinovante are of uncertain origin 

with regard to their native or Belgic heritage. Initially both 

tribes were, because of coin and ceramic finds, seen as 

distinctly Belgic; but further study questioned this 

assumption and much debate has followed. Webster names 

the Catuvellauni and Trinovantes as Belgic, having migrated 

to Britain from Gaul in the first century BC, while Branigan 

questions whether the Catuvellauni were Belgic or even 

existed as a tribal entity prior to 55BC. 28 Caesar wrote that 

the tribes of the interior (which would include those people 

who became the Catuvellauni) claimed an indigenous 

tradition. 29 

Concentrations of Gallo-Belgic A, B and E coinage in the 

land of the Trinovantes shows Belgic influence. 3° Further 

evidence that the Trinovantes may have had Belgic origins is 

seen with the arrival of Gallic refugees (possibly Bellovaci) 

around 56BC who, with the existing population pushed 

further inland north of the Thames. 31 

The Thames inlet and estuary would, like the lands of the 

Cantiaci and Iceni, have been natural landfalls for migrating 

peoples regardless of their numbers. The possibility of a 

Gallic warrior elite establishing themselves along the 

northern banks of the Thames is a possibility and one could 

surmise that the conflict recorded by Caesar between the 

Trinovante and Cassivellaunus and then consolidation of 

Tasciovanus might be a non-Belgic reaction to the arrival of 

Belgic refugees in the area. 

The issue of Belgic and non-Belgic ethnicity does not 

seem to have obviously affected fighting styles within the 

tribal war bands that faced the Romans. The response to the 

Roman army in Britain was varied; however whether these 

variations can be traced to Belgic and non-Belgic factors is 

not so clear and will be discussed below. 

17 



The physical geography and weather in Britain during the 

Iron Age was as equally varied as the people who lived there. 

These factors played a large part in the conducting of 

military campaigns in Britain and the warriors used the 

terrain to maximise their response to Roman invasion. 

The weather in Iron Age Britain was much as it was at the 

end of the second millennium, with prevailing westerly, 

depressions, ridges of high pressure and good rainfall, 

testimony of this given by the extensive river systems. 32 

Some of these rivers would be pivotal in tribal tactics used 

against the Romans. 

The temperature was varied with an estimated average in 

July of >15.5 degrees Celsius and an average rainfall of 

between 630mm and 1000mm per year. Wales however, had 

a higher annual rainfall of between 761mm to 2500mm. 33 

Both Southeastern and western Britain received snow 

averages from fewer than five days per year in the southeast 

to over ten days per year in Wales.34 

Extensive areas of Britain were covered in large forests, 

and these consisted of oak, elm, ash and lime, birch and pine, 

with wetlands supporting willow and alder. The thick woods 

also sheltered blackthorn, hawthorn, brambles and wild 

roses.35 These provided natural barriers to the Romans who 

marched westward to fight the tribal armies. Forests were to 

prove an important factor in tribal warfare, as both obstacles 

and refuges. 

Living within the confines of and beyond the great forests 

were a large variety of wildlife ranging from boar, wolves 

and eagles to wild oxen, deer, foxes, hare and badgers.36 The 

wild life of the forests of Britain potentially provided the 

warriors and tribal elite with resources for hunting either for 

food or sport. Hunting also represented an avenue through 

which warriors could train for raiding and war, in the 

exercise of tactical skill. 

18 



The river systems of Iron Age Britain were important 

geographical features and held both religious and economic 

importance while also providing communication and food 

resources. Many still have their ancient names, the Avon, 

Exe, Thames, Ouse and the Wye showing a linguistic 

continuation from the Bronze and Iron Ages. 

Most of the major rivers in Britain corresponded with the 

accepted tribal boundaries. As already stated the Avon 

separated the Durotriges and the Atrebates. The Thames 

served as a boundary between the Catuvellauni and the 

Cantiaci to their east, the Atrebates to their south and the 

Dobunni to their west. 

The Britons also saw the Channel and the river system as 

aquatic roadways on which trade goods and communications 

travelled. The Britons also looked at their rivers as obstacles 

and often defended the far bank against Roman attacks, the 

best example being Cassivallaunus at the Thames in 54BC 

and Caratacus and Togodurnnus at the Medway in 43AD.37 

In the last two centuries BC the weather improved. 38 The 

introduction of iron axes and other Iron Age technology 

increased the ability to cut into the forests and clear land for 

the growing of crops and the rearing of domesticated 

livestock. Iron-tipped ploughs increased tilling capacity and 

therefore land production. This impacted on the communities 

of Britain and by the 1 st century BC the population had 

rapidly increased to a substantial number of two and a half to 

three million people. 39 The cleared areas of Britain at this 

time were able to sustain large populations and thus 

increased a tribe's ability to field an army. 

By the first century BC, the Iron Age people of Gaul were 

well in decline as regional tribal powers in the face of 

aggressive expansion from the Roman world to the southeast 

and the Germans to the east and northeast. Across the 

Channel, prior to 56BC the Britons were physically isolated 

19 



from the military success of Caesar in Gaul These military 

successes created a period of huge social, cultural and 

political upheaval for the Gallic people. 

Gaul and Rome had begun interaction from the La Tene 

period onwards.40 Southern Gaul especially had been 

exposed to the classical world, first with the founding of the 

Greek colony of Massilia (600BC), and then with Gallic 

expansion into northern Italy (400BC). This was followed by 

Roman expansion into Spain during and after the second 

Punic war (218BC onwards). Rome used southern Gaul 

(Narbonensis) as its land route into the Iberian Peninsula. 

Gallic contact with the classical world through trade and 

war, combined with the westward movement of Germanic 

peoples, made an impact on Gaul with an increase in 

migratory movements throughout the fourth and third 

century, continuing down to the first century BC. 

The state of decline seen in Gaul was not reproduced in 

Britain on the same scale until after 43AD. However the 

movement of refugees, trade goods and ideas into Britain 

added some degree of stress to the fluid nature of British 

tribal politics and its effect on the reasons for resisting or 

supporting Roman invasion. 

By the first century BC, the peoples from southern 

Germany throughout Gaul, to Britain were populations in a 

state of flux.41 The Iron Age people of first century Western 

Europe were not united in the sense of having any idea of 

cultural commonality but were a collection of tribal 

groupings and small states. 

Moving out from the Rhone were tribal groups in various 

states of social development. The Helvetii of Switzerland and 

the Aedui of the Auvergne Mountains (near Lyon) were, by 

the time of Caesar's invasion (58BC) adopting fonns of 

statehood.42 Some tribes of central Gaul had developed states 

controlled by kings and elected leaders that shows evidence 

20 



of methodical organization. Living between the Mame and 

the Seine were the Suessiones who were ruled by a king, 

while the northern Belgian Eburones had two rulers. 43 Some 

areas of southeast Britain were also moving towards similar 

degrees of statehood. 

The political situation in Europe by the first century BC 

was one of constant change, with an undercurrent of inter­

tribal warfare as groups jockeyed for control of natural 

resources and trade routes. In 55BC, Britain was also going 

through a period of political change. 

Cunliffe talks of Britain changing to cope with folk 

movements around lOOBC (Belgic migrations) and then 

reacting to Caesar' s raids in 55 and 54BC. 'These two 

periods of crisis led to two different responses; the first 

seems to have encouraged fragmentation, giving rise to a 

number of warring factions, each concerned to carve out and 

maintain its own territory; while the second required national 

leadership'. 44 

In 54BC Cassivellaunus led a confederation of tribes to 

resist Caesar's invasion, while in 43AD the Catuvellauni also 

raised, but failed to hold, a united front against the Roman 

invasion. Not all tribes were willing to openly oppose Rome 

and others came over after tribal reversals on the battlefield. 

This shows the response to Roman invasion was varied. 

Some British tribes rushed to side with the Romans in 54BC 

and 43AD while others fought the invaders, and some 

remained totally detached. 

Between 55BC and 43AD, parts of the southeast Britain 

went through political changes that mirrored patterns of tribal 

confederation seen in Gaul. 45 The British Catuvellauni and 

Cantiaci are two examples and all the major tribes of Britain 

trace their existence by 43AD to groupings of smaller tribes. 

The Brigantes were such a tribe as were the Iceni, Coritani, 

Durotriges and the Parisi. 46 This was a move, as seen in 

21 



Gaul, to control resources and the trade with the continent 

that was coming under the increasingly tight control of Rome 

by 52BC. 

D Landover 
200 metres 

x 'Dispersed' 
oppid,i 

• 'Nucleated 
oppida 

• Major ports 

Map 2. Showing the three trade zones. (From P. Salway. The 

Oxford lllustrated History of Roman Britain. Oxfcxd, Oxford 

University Press. 1993 p 29). 

22 



Some processes of tribal and state development in Gaul 

were of a nature that allowed for the voting in of tribal 

leaders, however in Britain tribal dynasties characterised the 

face of political control. The Catuvellauni rose to power, 

dominating much of southeast Britain under the dynasty 

begun by Tasciovanus. He was succeeded by his son 

Cunobelin who, in turn handed over tribal authority and 

leadership to his brother and sons. 

The Trinovante and their quarrel with the Catuvellauni 

also suggest that dynastic rule was the accepted form of tribal 

control. Mandubracius sought to regain leadership over the 

Trinovante after his father Imanuentios had been killed by 

Cassivellaunus therefore claiming tribal leadership through a 

hereditary right. 47 

The Atrebates, from 52BC were also ruled dynastically 

under Commius who was succeeded by Tincommius and in 

turn by other family members. The Iceni also showed the 

potential for dynastic rule when Prasutagus attempted to pass 

the rule of the tribe and half his wealth on to his two 

daughters in 60AD. These dynasties influenced political 

events in Britain following Caesar's invasions and leading up 

to and beyond the Claudian invasion. They also added a 

political dimension to Roman diplomacy in Britain and had a 

great impact on the tribal responses to Roman invasion. 

This fluid fonn of confederation seen in Britain was a 

move towards the loose centralization that Haselgrove 

describes as political structures of relatively small-scale 

corporate groups controlled by an elite. 'These basic units 

were also loosely linked together in wider culturally 

differentiated configurations by ties of clientage and shared 

ancestry. ' 48 

The development of centralisation was economically 

driven and from 55BC to 43AD larger tribal groups became 

involved in trading partnerships. An example of this was the 

23 



Dobunni (occupying Gloucester, Hereford and Worcester) 

who traded and shared borders with the other major tribal 

groupings of southeastem Britain, the Catuvellauni, 

Trinovante and the Durotriges.49 

During this time Iron Age Britain developed into distinct 

economic areas that Cunliffe has divided into three major 

zones, the core, the periphery and outer or beyond. 50 (See 

map, p22). The core zones incorporated the tribal groupings 

that enjoyed trade domination and gained wealth and power 

through their control of trade goods (the 

Catuvellauni/Trinovantes, the Atrebates and to a minor 

degree the Cantiaci). 

Rome would have played an indirect role in the creation 

of these core zone power bases as they had control of the 

Gallic coast, important for the importation and exportation of 

trade goods. Through diplomatic links and trade concessions, 

Rome would have had a vested interest in keeping powerful 

tribes friendly to Rome. It would have been just as important 

to counter equally powerful or weaker tribes not so friendly 

to Rome. This can be seen in the support Rome gave to both 

the Atrebates and Catuvellauni who competed for the 

domination of southeastem Britain. 

The periphery incorporated the tribal groupings that lay 

outside the core (the Iceni, Coritani, Dobunni and the 

Durotriges). The outer zone, or beyond, were the tribes even 

further out (the Dumnonii, Comovii and the Welsh tribes). 

The movement of raw materials and trade items from the 

zones beyond, into the core would have been through the 

lands and trade mechanisms of the periphery tribes. The 

situation in each zone was fluid and at various stages of 

development. 51 

At the centre of the core zone by 43AD were the 

Catuvellauni whose domination of southeastem Britain had 

come at the expense of the Cantiaci, Trinovantes and the 

24 



Atrebates. The Dobunni to the west were also under pressure. 

This environment of political and economic competition 

would have a major influence on events in Britain during the 

Claudian invasion, while also influencing the military 

policies of the British tribes. 

By AD43 the south east of Britain had reached a degree of 

stability through Cunobelin's control of many of the trade 

routes. Despite this veneer of political domination, division 

still existed that would have military implication in regard to 

the success of any united tribal resistance to Rome. 

The political structure in Wales has been reconstructed 

from archaeological excavations undertaken in that area. The 

evidence that has been uncovered shows that Belgic and 

continental influences failed to infiltrate Wales until mid-first 

century AD, pointing to the continuation of indigenous 

origins.52 Cunliffe believes that Wales was divided into a 

minimum of five tribal areas 'roughly approximating to 

broad geographical divisionsand that the isolation of Wales 

from continental influences provided a degree of cultural 

continuity. 53 

Links to Ireland and their geographical distance from Gaul 

suggest that the Welsh had a cultural identity free from 

Belgic influence with more contact westward, across the 

Irish Sea.54 The Welsh tribes lay beyond the sphere of 

continental (Belgic) influence, but did however have contact, 

through the Comovii with the east and may have had 

minimal contact with the neighbouring Dobunni, 

Catuvellauni and Coritani. 

The tribal groupings in Wales were of a decentralized and 

autonomous nature and differed to the core zones in the 

southeast of Britain by 43AD. This major difference between 

decentralised and centralised political structures did not seem 

to change the cultural and social structure that characterized 

the Iron Age British society. The decentralised nature of the 

25 



Welsh tribes had military implications when Roman armies 

moved into these areas and faced these scattered tribal 

groupings. The centralised southeast fell quickly to Roman 

forces while the west maintained a protracted resistance. 

Socially, the Britons appear to have had a very advanced 

system and culture that had quite distinct social divisions. 

Within this society 'each person belongs to a class. In the 

highest position were the nobles, people of great value to the 

community. In the lowest position were the bondservants, 

people who contributed little to the community' . 55 

Archaeological excavations from gravesites have produced 

rich grave goods suggesting that different levels of society 

existed in some areas of Iron Age Britain. 

The classical accounts of Iron Age peoples, archaeological 

evidence and comparisons drawn from native Celtic sources 

from Iron Age Ireland can be used to reconstruct the levels 

within British tribal societies. 56 The social structure of Iron 

Age Britain was based around a core kin group that was led 

by the socially elite. This early social structure has been 

described as a heroic, 'intelligent, complex, wealthy and 

accomplished family of societies'. 57 

Conventionally hill forts were seen as an obvious physical 

example of tribal authority and stratification within tribal 

units. 58 The centralised authority required to execute these 

kinds of projects may have come from a single power with 

stratified positions to enforce the wishes of a regional leader 

for common tribal goals on a surplus labour force. 59 

The issue that hill fort settlements represent the 

stratification of tribal societies has recently been questioned. 

Archaeological digs carried out at Danebury show an 

absence of a "chieftains house" and while only 57 per cent of 

the area has been explored it still remains the largest scale 

hill fort excavations in Britain. This offers some evidence 

26 



that not all Iron Age settlements rn Britain were 

hierarchical. 60 

The top of British society was made up of elite noble 

families, and while it is believed that tribal leadership was 

dynastic, there was not necessarily direct descent of tribal 

authority within a single family, more that descent was open 

to the leading families. 61 This was seen in the post-Cunobelin 

period of the Catuvellauni in Britain (40BC), where members 

of leading families jockeyed for political domination of their 

tribal groups.62 

In central Gaul, the Aedui had created a system of elected 

leaders as a vehicle for rule. The term 'magistrates' was used 

by Caesar to label this type of political structure he 

encountered.63 The Aedui had a head magistrate or Vergobret 

elected by the leading nobles (or senate as Caesar noted) , 

who wielded power of life or death. 64 The Suessiones of 

southern Belgica preferred the rule of a king while the 

northern Belgic Nervii had war leaders; the northeastern 

Treveri still had a paramount chief. 65 

These forms of political rule developed in some parts of 

southeast Britain. Tribal leadership, in comparison took on 

several forms in British society. There was leadership 

through kings and queens or chieftains and in some political 

structures, dual leadership as seen in the Coritani who 

provide evidence of possible dual or magistrate rule on 

coinage issued between 10-50AD.66 

In the context of tribal military response, the rights of a 

tribe as a collective group in choosing to fight had an 

interesting impact on decision-making. In 55BC, Caesar 

noted that the Cantiaci had held his continental Atrebatic 

envoy, Commius, prisoner due to the wishes of the 'common 

people' .67 This implies that any military action would have 

gone to some form of vote. Caesar also explained tribal 

factions existing as a safeguard against tyranny. 68 The 

27 



factional aspect of Iron Age society is well attested in Britain 

through classical accounts and is supported by evidence 

found on Iron Age coinage such as those attributed to Corio 

and Boduocus who both ruled factions of the Do bunni. 69 

Leaders in British tribal society held power of life and 

death over the people under them and there existed a 

complex kin-based legal system. Cherici supports the kin­

based structure of tribal authority and states that the judicial 

system was based on a tradition of the extended family 

group.70 Tribal connections made members obligated to any 

decisions passed by the tribal authority 'compliance was 

usually voluntary. If enforcement was necessary, the duty fell 

to the kin of the aggrieved party' . 71 Tribal authority was 

impartial in the sense that all were answerable to the laws of 

the tribe; however, the degree of punishment or 

compensation was determined by a person's status. 72 

British tribal law was based around the community and 

was extended to all members of the tribe, accounting for the 

sick, poor, old and orphaned. 73 Accounts of these groups 

being cared for by their tribe go as far back as 300BC. 74 The 

backbone of tribal law was to provide security for all those 

within a tribal group. The worst punishment to befall a 

member of the tribe, according to Caesar was to be banned 

from the tribal sacrifices. This also meant tribal exclusion 

and the withdrawal of legal standing or protection. 75 

The people of Iron Age Britain were colourful, wore 

jewellery and took great pride in their appearance. They are 

recorded as taking baths using soap and herbs to anoint their 

bodies and the people of Western Europe according to 

Diodorus Siculus have been credited with the invention of 

soap (sopa).76 

Historical accounts by classical writers and images shown 

on engravings and stone reliefs give numerous images of 

what Britons wore. During the late Iron Age males wore 

28 



long-sleeved shirts or tunics and trousers (bracae). Women 

wore the peplos, a garment that consisted of two rectangular 

garments held together at the shoulder by a fibula. This type 

of clothing was practically suited to the climate, while it 

could be assumed that the wearing of trousers could also be 

attributed to the fact that Britons rode horses and chariots it 

is more likely to have been the cooler weather.77 

The clothing of Britain and neighbouring lands was 

colourful, striking and fine 78 and garment production was 

quite advanced by 54BC, supported by Caesar's impression 

of the quality of the British cloak (sagi) and its prized status 

in Rome.79 Tartan appears to have been worn by the British 

and examples were recorded in classical accounts and 

archaeological evidence from items found in bogs across 

Western Europe and Britain supports this. 80 This would have 

added to the colourful image of the Britons. 

The position of women in Iron Age Britain was different 

to that of the women in Gaul and the classical world. The old 

pre-Christian law codes of Ireland (Brehon) that are believed 

to have oeveloped from an Iron Age tradition suggest some 

degree of legal rights for women at most levels of society. 81 

The Welsh law codes (Hywel Dda), while of a later period 

are also thought to have been of early origins and extended 

legal rights to women. 82 

Caesar discussed the system of marriage in Gaul where 

male and female provided equal shares to the marriage 

arrangement. The profits of such arrangements were kept 

separate and went to the survivor of the union. 83 The system 

in Gaul may have been carried into southeast Britain. 

Evidence in gravesites attests to the existence of high status 

women from the ruling elites who enjoyed good living 

standards within their communities that classical accounts 

also describe. 

29 



The Arras culture graves of eastern Yorkshire (third to 

first centuries BC) are examples of high status females and in 

Gaul rich female graves have been found at Vix, although of 

an earlier period (500BC). 84 Britain had a tradition of high 

status women who led their tribes in Boudica of the Iceni and 

Cartimandua of the Brigantes. 85 The existence of these two 

female rulers doesn't necessarily make this the norm in 

British society, and coinage does not clearly state gender and 

therefore doesn' t confirm whether female rule was a 

common British tradition or not. 

The dearth of recorded documentation on free and non­

free women makes it difficult to study their role in Iron Age 

British society, but examples given in pre-Christian law 

show that women were provided for within the tribal 

grouping and had rights in the issues concerning marriage 

and divorce. In all officially recognised relationships, women 

retained a high degree of independence; this enabled them to 

control property and the choice of extramarital lovers. 86 

Women in Iron Age Britain did not live in a 'socially 

liberated paradise' , but did enjoy more freedom then their 

Greek and Roman counterparts. 87 The leadership role of 

Boudica had important military implications and will be 

addressed below. 

Children are often ignored when looking at the framework 

of society. Some information on children within British 

society does exist that helps to reconstruct their position 

within the tribe. Formal training called fosterage took place 

in British society and all children received a form of 

education according to their rank.88 Both boys and girls went 

off to tribal relatives or as hostages to non-related tribal 

groups who provided their education. This would have 

established formal training while possibly creating the 

potential for or strengthening tribal alliances. Age-sets 

existed in British society where young males grew and 

30 



trained right up into manhood.89 This could also have helped 

further maintain tribal alliances and may have been the basis 

for tribal war bands. 

Another function within the ruling members of the tribe 

and the social elite were a group who have created much 

interest in Iron Age and 'Celtic' scholarship and non­

academic studies. This group was the Druids. Any work on 

Druids is problematic, as there is very little information on 

them other than what some of the classical sources, like 

Caesar, wrote. Archaeology has left no evidence on this 

aspect of British culture. Written accounts fall under classical 

viewpoints or Irish and British records that compiled 

centuries later by Christian clergy.90 Both classical writers 

and Christians would have looked at Druids through alien 

eyes. 

Druids are believed to have held high positions within 

their tribal societies. Caesar wrote that they were drawn from 

the privileged classes, undertook lengthy training and were 

exempt from military service. They passed the judgement in 

disputes and elected a supreme Druid from their ranks at 

annual meetings held in the forest of Carnutes in central 

Gaul. Caesar believed that druidism originated in Britain and 

that those in Gaul wishing to become expert in druid lore 

would cross the Channe191 

Caesar's accounts would reflect the classical views of a 

group that may have been involved in many areas and at all 

levels of British and Gallic society. It has been suggested that 

Druids may have been visually indistiguishable in 

appearance from other tribal members, being fully integrated 

into their tribal group. Tribes may also have had their own 

Druidic groups.92 

Many scholars believe there existed in Iron Age Gaul and 

Britain a pan-Druidic priesthood that maintained relative 

freedom of movement between tribal territories and held 

31 



considerable political power. Caesar's observations of the 

annual meeting and the required travel to Britain supports 

this. A degree of caution should, however be observed when 

making generalizations on pan-tribal Druidism. 

There is evidence from classical sources that Iron Age 

tribal society put great importance on its semi-religious caste 

that, among other duties were the holders of the lore and law 

of the tribe. The impact of pan-tribal warfare must have 

made movement between warring tribal boundaries difficult. 

The risk of losing the holders of tribal knowledge and the 

suspicion Druids must have drawn from other tribal groups 

may have hindered the free movement by these people 

between tribes. The Druids may possibly have been a focus 

for superstitious attention. 

Ross and Robins claim that Druids practiced magic, 

through spell and prayer to influence the outcome of battle. 93 

This supports Tacitus who wrote about the attack by 

Paullinus on Anglesey (Mona) in 60AD where he observed 

Druids 'lifting up their hands to heaven, and pouring forth 

dreadful imprecations ' . 94 While these events record the 

actions of Druids working against the Roman threat, any 

military capacity would surely have threatened any pan-tribal 

immunity Druids may have enjoyed in British Iron Age 

society. 

Geography, distance, supernatural suspicion and the 

military function Druids held would have created problems 

with any move to set up a centralized Druidic organization 

under normal circumstances within Britain (tribal warfare 

and antagonism). An external threat may have created the 

climate to warrant limited centralized resistance like that 

directed from the island of Mona in the late 40s and early 50s 

AD. 

One aspect of the tribal group that held great importance 

and linked to the Druids was the bard. This member was the 

32 



composer and teller of stories. The bard was also linked 

directly to the celebration of warfare, 'the ultimate repository 

of a warrior's fame and good name and of the exploits of the 

tribe or clan'. 95 To a warrior society that recorded events, 

lore and laws orally, the role of the storyteller would have 

been closely tied to the events of the tribe and the recounting 

of them while holding positions of priviledge. 

The tribal warriors who Caesar called 'knights' , also held 

a privileged position within the ranks of the British social 

elite.96 Warfare appears to have been an important 

component of everyday life in Iron Age Britain and it was 

through war that warriors gained both wealth and prestige. 

Archaeological evidence has left many examples of the 

energy these people dedicated to warfare and many burial 

goods and weapons show that the Britons took pride in their 

weapons and placed great importance on those who carried 

them.97 

The warriors would lead tribal groups on raids and 

campaign and were expected to fight, leading by example. It 

was while raiding and on campaign that the warrior could 

gain a reputation by showing fellow warriors their ability in 

defeating an enemy or leading a successful military foray. 

Hunting would have also satisfied the warriors' desire to 

prove their bravery and strength while providing training and 

exercise. 

The focus on the control of trade-goods, resources and 

trade routes created a general shift from the pursuit of war to 

the gaining wealth and prestige in southeastem Britain 

between 54BC and 43AD. Did this increase the need for full­

time warriors to maintain control of and defend trade routes 

and resources? It may have and perhaps hired warriors filled 

this kind of gap as the tribal elite moved away from raiding 

into trading. This could have also created the economic 

33 



motivations and the environment where British and Gallic 

warriors moved across the Channel for coin. 

The Catuvellauni under Cunobelin sought to extend their 

dominance through trade, others held to the more warlike 

practices of old. The spread of Catuvellauni coinage 

attributed to Cunobelin may suggest that he used money as a 

persuasive factor in gaining trade deals alongside military 

power. 

Classical scholars noted the existence of mercenaries in 

Iron Age society and 'Celtic' warriors are recorded as 

fighting for the Greek states, Macedonia and Hannibal and 

the movement of mercenaries may have been a 'mechanism 

for peacefully removing surplus young men from within a 

group' .98 The movement of mercenary bands could increase 

to whole tribal groups. 99 

The semi-professional nature of the tribal elite war band 

may have made the transition to hired mercenaries an easy 

step to take. This could help explain the presence of British 

warriors fighting Caesar in Gaul and the existence of Gallo­

Belgic C, D and E coin types in southeastern Britain from the 

first century BC. Caesar, in stating the presence of Britons in 

Gaul, may have been recording a tradition of mercenary 

movements across the Channel 100 

The bulk of the tribe was made up from the free members 

of their tribal groups and was responsible for filling the ranks 

of the tribal armies and working the land. These people, 

through the absence of rich material evidence in their graves, 

have left proof of their exisistence. The warrior and merchant 

elite of Britain left grave goods showing off their wealth; the 

absence of rich grave goods suggests common folk. 101 

Free people worked the land in return for stock from the 

tribal elite. They paid the ruling families in food-rent and by 

offering services. 102 Service on campaign and the working on 

defences may also have been expected in return for seed, 

34 



stock and protection. Small hamlets possibly constituting free 

family units and the extent of land use in Britain supports 

this arrangement. 103 A flourishing agricultural economy 

supported the large population seen in Britain. 104 

Living alongside the free people within the tribal units 

were the non-free members of the tribe. The term non-free is 

used to describe the level of British society where the people 

may have been denied political freedom because of law 

breaking or other reasons such as warfare and raiding. 105 

When Caesar moved into Gaul from 58BC, hundreds of 

thousands of Gallic people resistant to Rome were sold into 

slavery. Britain, to the Romans, may have been seen as 

another location to obtain more slaves through conquest and 

from slave trading networks. 106 It is also possible that contact 

with the Roman world encouraged trade in a new commodity 

of human slaves. Strabo however, wrote that Britain traded in 

captive manpower. 107 

A slave trade that developed in Britain may have risen 

with the westward expansion of Roman frontier and could 

indeed have been a response to supply and demand on the 

continent. Slaves would have been moved through British 

tribal lands as a trade commodity, not remaining as a part of 

a slave culture within Iron Age society. 108 Slave chains found 

at the hill fort of Bigbury in Kent and Llyn Cerrig Bach in 

Wales supports the classical accounts of a slave trade in 

Britain, but at what level British society relied on slaves is 

unclear. 109 

From a military viewpoint, slaves would pose a security 

problem when a tribe went campaigning or raiding. Any 

society that has an element of slavery would need to ensure 

that any un-free population would not rise at any time of 

crisis. There is no evidence in the classical sources of slave 

uprisings in Iron Age Britain. 

35 



Archaeology and aerial photography has uncovered 

evidence of Iron Age dwellings across Britain. The hill-fort 

is one of the better-known and physically obvious remains of 

Bronze and Iron Age habitation. British tribes used hill-forts 

and these structures signify a combination of military 

response, display of wealth and the need for protection on a 

large and organized scale. Hill-forts were occupied and 

abandoned at regular intervals. 

i1i1i=::'­

=-

Map 3. General settlement types in Britain around 150BC. 

(From M.Millett. The Romanization of Britain: An Essay in 

Archaeological. Interpretation. 

University Press. 1990 p 16). 

36 

Cambridge, Cambridge 



Some hill-forts sustained large populations such as 

Danesbury (two hundred 110
) , Maiden Castle and Hod Hill 

(four hundred to one thousand11 1). They contained 

roundhouses, storage buildings and pits with agricultural and 

industry-based buildings. Danesbury, Maiden Castle and Hod 

Hill even had primitive street systems. 112 The population of 

such hill-forts varied and these settlement uses were 

widespread. 

Wacher gives a figure of hill-forts in Britain (including 

northern England and Scotland) as over 3,000 sites known to 

have been occupied at one stage or another. 113 The military 

aspect of hill-forts was seen in the reaction of the Durotrigian 

who responded to the Roman invasions in 55-54BC and 

43AD by refortifying and defending their hill forts. 

The British countryside that had been cleared was well 

populated and aerial photography shows obvious housing 

patterns based around farming settlements. British housing 

was largely round in structure with cone shaped roofing and 

generally made of wood, although dry-stone buildings 

existed in parts of Wales. Reconstructed houses can be found 

at Buster farm in Hampshire; 114 while many dry stone 

remains can be found at sites in Cornwall (Crane Godrevy, 

Goldherring and Porthrneor) and Wales (Hafoty Wern-Las, 

Din Lligwy and Cefn Graeanog ID). 115 

Excavations at hill forts such as Danebury, Croft Arnbrey 

and Credenhill Camp show evidence of rectangular housing. 

It is unclear to whether these buildings were occupied or 

functioned as storage sheds or workshops.116 

Ditches, stone enclosures, palisades or hedges were 

utilised to defend some settlements and the number of 

buildings varied with the size of the settlements. 117 British 

housing was also free of window glass or roofing tiles, with 

the use of thatch, turf, hide or wooden shingles preferred. 

The floor was of earth or sometimes-wooden planks. 118 

37 



Towns in a classical sense were largely absent in Britain 

and hill forts, rural settlements and farmsteads centred on 

field systems were regularly spread throughout the 

countryside. u9 Some tribal areas were moving into large 

settlement structures known as oppida. These were a large 

area defended by a series of embankments or dykes. These 

were 'urban or proto-urban settlements' and several have 

been located at Camulodunum, Verulamium, Canterbury, 

Calleva, Venta, Bagendon and Chichester. 120 

The oppida was a settlement structure also developing in 

Gaul from the second century BC and was the Roman term 

used to describe large settlements that functioned as tribal 

administrative centres that housed craftsmen and coinage 

mints. 121 The British oppida varied in size, with 

Camulodunum incorporating an area of 31km Square, Venta 

13.8 hectares and Bagendon 81 hectares.122 

The larger tribes within the core zones were developing 

this style of settlement by the first century BC. The 

Durotriges style of proto-urban settlement saw the further 

increase in populations living within established hill forts. 

This may reflect the need for protection from internal and 

external pressures. 

Agriculture was one of the main activities in Iron Age 

Britain and aerial photography and archaeological evidence 

show that field systems averaged between 0.1 and 0.2ha in 

area, basically the area a person could plough in a day. 

British sites number in the thousands. 123 Agricultural 

production, as discussed above was so intensive in southeast 

Britain at least (due to Iron Age technology) that by the first 

centuries BC and AD communities were able to yield a 

substantial surplus of food crops. This stimulated population 

growth and created an environment that could sustain tribal 

elite and specialized craftsmen. 124 

38 



The security of agricultural production had military 

implications for a tribe' s ability to put warriors into the field 

and finance them. Tribal raiding would have minimal impact 

on a tribe' s food supply especially if surpluses were held 

within hill forts or defended enclosures. The presence of a 

Roman army and their search for food, however would have 

been taxing on a tribe's food resources. 

It was also vitally important that crops could be kept from 

invading forces, denying them subsistence in hostile lands. 

Caesar faced this problem in 54BC and had to rely on pro­

Roman tribes (the Trinovantes) for supplies. 

Archaeological excavations at the settlement of 

Hengistbury provide an example of an Iron Age location of 

grain collection, suggesting that the population there was 

removed from primary agricultural production.125 By the late 

Iron Age, British agriculture was 'sophisticated and highly 

productive', supporting the practice of grain exportation out 

of Britain.126 

Crop production yielded a wide variety of cereals, which 

included emmer wheat, naked barley, rye, oats and beans. 

Britain also had plants, fruit and nuts. Some varieties grown 

in Britain included carrots, cabbages, hazelnuts and spices. 127 

The woodlands of Britain were used to graze animals, of 

which pigs were of importance. Domesticated birds, in the 

form of chickens, geese and ducks, were exploited as food 

sources as well as seafood. Sheep and cattle grazing varied in 

intensity, with sheep being utilised more prior to the Roman 

invasion, although both were maintained with regional 

variations in native settlements after 43AD. 128 

An important change in the pursuit of wealth and prestige 

came in the form of trade. After 54BC, Britain was directly 

drawn into the sphere of the classical money economy that 

had moved into Gaul as early as 600BC. Massilia had 

provided a base for trade goods to flow into and out of 

39 



Bronze and Iron Age Gaul and Britain. The standard 

movement between Gaul and Britain and the classical world 

was essentially that of European raw materials for Greek and 

Roman luxury products. 

Trade has military implications and will be looked at in 

depth below, suffice to say here that trade rose to a level 

where tribes in Gaul and Britain shared control of and 

competed for the dominance of the Channel and a complex 

trade network developed and continued into the first century 

AD. After 54BC, the Catuvellauni and Atrebate in Britain 

built up powerful states based on trade and competed against 

each other for the domination of southeastem Britain. 

The ability to grow a surplus enabled trade exports. This 

in turn stimulated a move towards centralised power bases 

that increased the wealth of the ruling elite and their ability 

to compete with other trade rivals. Trade links to the 

continent would have also bought the possibility of trade and 

diplomatic deals with the Romans, as seen in the Atrebates 

and possibly the Iceni and Cunobelin. 

Evidence of trading dominance can be traced through 

coinage that had found its way first into Gaul, bought by 

mercenaries serving in the Hellenic armies and thus 

transported to and adopted by British tribes. 129 The money 

economy took over once Rome conquered Britain, yet the 

barter system, an important facet of Iron Age trading 

tradition, remained an integral part of native economics. 

Land was an important factor in economics and society. 

Land provided tribal sustenance as well as the natural 

resources that were vital for trade. But who "owned" the 

land? The system of land ownership in the Iron Age has been 

described as an embedded economy. 130 The issue of 

ownership may have held little importance as the land was 

communally shared. The tribal elite however, controlled the 

all-important produce from the land and thus any surplus 

40 



enabling them to establish strong trading power. Grazing 

rights and plot allotment were allocated to individuals or 

small family groups. 131 

Raiding was another way in which warriors gained wealth 

prior to the rise in importance of trade orientated economics. 

Cunliffe believes that movement away from the use of hill 

forts between the first centuries BC and AD was a reaction to 

the shift from a raiding economy to trade. Trade and the 

protection of trade route and agreements may have made 

raiding between trading tribes obsolete. 132 However the 

potential wealth to be gained from raiding trade routes must 

have appealed to those tribal groups outside of the trading 

networks. 

Classical sources point to an underlying factor in the 

culture and activities of Iron Age Britons, their apparent 

celebration of warfare and martial activities. The pursuit of 

wealth and prestige could be achieved through war or trade. 

Archaeology supports classical accounts in describing the 

equipment used by Iron Age warriors of Britain. What they 

looked like and the weapons they used in tum gives an 

insight into how they fought. Archaeological finds from Iron 

Age Britain show the range of weaponry, such as helmets, 

swords, spears and shields that were used. It also shows that 

the Iron Age Britons put much energy into the making and 

use of arms. 

The Iron Age armies of Britain were essentially infantry­

based and Tacitus states that (alongside the chariot) this was 

one of their martial strengths. 133 The tribal freemen would 

have made up the mass of infantry. The equipment they used 

varied from projectile weapons, such as bow and arrows, 

slings and throwing spears or javelins and shields. It is highly 

probable that the primary weapon of the infantry was the 

spear or throwing javelin. 134 

41 



Caesar wrote of the problems and uncertainty his men 

experienced on reaching the shores of Britain during his raid 

in 55BC, because of the hail of projectiles the tribal warriors 

hurled into the waiting soldiers. 135 The use of projectile 

weapons was stated in this instance and on other occasions 

where close quarters fighting began after a volley of spears 

and javelins had been thrown into the enemy' s ranks. 

Archaeological finds have produced many examples of 

spearheads in gravesites and in votive deposits sites along the 

Thames. Coinage and stone reliefs depicting spearmen 

support the wide usage of the spear by British warriors. The 

spear and throwing javelin also suited the British tribal style 

of raiding or indirect warfare where the projectile would 

complement hit and run tactics. This style of warfare featured 

largely in the response to Roman invasion under the direction 

of Cassivellaunus in 54BC. 

The tribal levies either fought without armour or wore 

light body protection. This armour consisted of jerkins of 

hardened and greased leather with shoulder straps protecting 

vital areas while some warriors preferred fighting semi­

naked, trusting to magic to protect them in battle.136 The cost 

of armour and helmets would also have restricted their use to 

the tribal elite so therefore the tribal levies were generally 

light troops. 

Warriors of the tribal elite wore armour, which because of 

its cost would have possibly increased the wearer's status 

and profile on the battlefield while also giving protection. 

Evidence of chain mail has been represented in bronze and 

stone statues, while archaeological finds support its use. 137 

An example of well-preserved British chain mail was found 

at St Albans (Pre-Roman Verulamium). 138 

It has been claimed that chain mail was in fact a Celtic 

invention, dating to graves in 300BC. Chain mail, due to its 

labour intensive manufacture, may not only have been a 

42 



status symbol but a family heirloom as well. 139 The limited 

amount of armour worn by the tribal armies of Iron Age 

Britain had a great impact on casualties when they met well­

armoured Roman soldiers and auxiliaries at close quarters. 

The indirect style of warfare may have reflected an 

understanding of what would happen when lightly clad 

warriors faced the Romans in pitched battle. 

Iron Age warriors carried large shields for attack and 

protection in battle. Diodorus describes shields decorated in 

individual designs that fall into line with the fashionable 

mentality of British Iron Age Warriors. 140 Shields were an 

important part of an Iron Age warrior's equipment and many 

stone reliefs and statues show these shields. 

Shields were made out of a variety of material from wood 

and leather to bronze. Some of the fine bronze examples like 

the Battersea and Chertsey shields, which were recovered 

from rivers, suggest votive or ceremonial functions as 

opposed to more practical combat usage. Their cosmetic 

features and the absence of any signs of combat support this 

assumption. 

The size of the shields Iron Age Britons carried may also 

reflect a technical development in weaponry seen across 

Western Europe. They varied in size, ranging from l. lm to 

l.3-l.4m. 141 These shields could possibly have evolved out 

of a need to cover the body from projectile attack. These long 

shields are traced to the Hallstatt period and continued into 

the La Tene period.142 

The Bronze and Iron Age swords of the Britons are well 

documented and hundreds have been found throughout 

Britain. There is evidence supporting the high quality of Iron 

Age swords and also accounts of weapons of poor quality. 

Polybius, when writing about Gallic warriors and their 

swords, wrote that after the first sword blows 'the edges are 

immediately blunted and the blades become so bent 

43 



lengthways and sideways that unless the men are given time 

to straighten them against the ground, the second blow has 

virtually no effect.' Scott-Kilvert believes Polybius started 

this 'legend' and was then copied by Plutarch who recounted 

Gallic swords used in 377BC. 143 

The softness of the swords Polybius described indicates 

that they may have been made of bronze or soft iron. 

Cunliffe states that Polybius' observations of sword quality 

and shape may have been the result of ritual activity as 

opposed to combat. 144 

An Iron Age sword found in Kirk burn, East Yorkshire, 

however shows an amazing example of British 

craftsmanship. The remains of this sword (constituting over 

seventy components) provide insight of a considerable 

technical skill in its design, with its intricate pommel, grip 

and hand guard assembly. The scabbard, hand guard and 

pommel are engraved and have detailed enamelling.145 

The inconsistencies between classical accounts and 

archaeological evidence suggests that across Gaul and 

Britain, sword manufacture was as varied as the people who 

occupied these lands and that their skills, and the quality of 

the iron used, was quite possibly just as varied. Perhaps the 

need to arm large armies quickly affected the quality of 

swords in Iron Age Europe? 

Accepting that the primary weapons of the tribal armies 

were the spear and shield points to the strong possibility that 

high quality sword, like chain mail, was an item used by the 

tribal elite and represented a symbol of status. In 47-48AD 

the Iceni rose in revolt against the Roman governor of 

Britain, Publius Ostorius Scapula when he sought to disarm 

their nobles. 146 An attack on their right to wear the sword as 

a badge of status may have incensed the Iceni. 

The very shape, nature and rich decorations of the British 

Iron Age sword, with its length (an average of up to 90cm147
) 

44 



and slashing function, could point to the sword being more 

an item of show or intimidation and that the actual business 

end of combat was covered by the widely used spears and 

javelins. 

As stated above the javelin is shown on many depictions 

of British mounted or chariot-riding warriors. Coinage from 

Tincommius, Verica and Epaticcus has been found depicting 

mounted spearmen. 148 The Roman monumental arch at 

Orange from the first century AD, and within the period 

under discussion, shows Iron Age weaponry captured and 

includes among the shields, swords, helmets and war-horns, 

a large number of spears. 149 

The chariot and cavalry made up parts of the tribal armies 

of Britain and would have been the domain of the tribal elite. 

Chariot warfare, mentioned by several classical writers, had 

faded from the tactics of Iron Age armies in Gaul well before 

58BC but was still in use across the Channel. Horses, the 

means to pull the chariots were well established in Britain for 

riding and draught by one thousand BC. 150 

The single-axled, two horse chariot was used as a 

launching pad from which warriors, supported by a driver, 

could release javelins into the ranks of the enemy. An 

accepted view in Iron Age Britain is of the tribal warrior 

charging into the ranks of the enemy's infantry, dismounting 

to engage in hand to hand combat, while their driver departed 

the battlefield to return when required, effectively 

functioning as what's been termed a 'battle taxi'. 151 Caesar 

wrote that the chariot-riding warrior combined the mobility 

of cavalry, shock of projectile and the impact and stamina of 

flexible infantry. 152 

The notion of a 'battle taxi', while providing a romantic 

function for the chariot, seems quite impractical. Single 

chariots moving within the ranks of formed up Roman 

formations would have no advantage at all. If these Romans 

45 



were in disorder then the impact of the chariot, closely 

supported by cavalry could be effective indeed. The chariot 

would have however, made a good platform to throw spears 

and javelins from. 

In Britain, Caesar mentions cavalry and chariots working 

along side. 153 British cavalry would have provided tribal 

armies with their mobility for screening, reconnaissance and 

as an impact force. Gallic and British tribesmen were well 

respected as mounted troops and Gallic cavalry enjoyed 

service in the Roman army during the invasions of 54BC and 

43AD. 

Warfare had a religious element in the tribal warrior 

societies of Iron Age Britain. As already stated, Druids have 

been recorded as being present on the battlefield where they 

were employed to act as spell casters, while also working to 

unnerve the opposing armies. Many accounts also discuss the 

practice of offering weapons up before and after battle. This 

suggests a spiritual/religious dimension to Iron Age warfare 

in Britain. 

On the island of Mona, the site of Llyn Cerrig Bach has 

given up one hundred and thirty eight archaeological 

items. 154 Most are of a martial nature suggesting that this was 

a place of importance to warriors who deposited an array of 

weapons as votive offerings. 155 The Thames has also given 

up weapons that appear to have been votive offerings, the 

most famous finds being the Battersea shield and the 

Waterloo Bridge homed helmet. 

The use of blue body paint or woad (extracts from Isalis 

Tinctalia), and the reports of naked warriors as discussed 

above, also suggests a religious element to Iron Age warfare. 

A body found in Lindow Moss in the early eighties had signs 

of body paint, supporting the reports of painted Britons. 156 

There are no practical reasons for going into battle naked and 

indeed would appear strange unless there was some sense of 

46 



protection, possibly through spells or magical properties in 

body paint or a belief that, through votive offering one had 

the gods' protection. 

Caesar wrote that the Iron Age people he came into 

contact with in his wars believed in a form of reincarnation 

and that the soul 'does not perish but passes after death from 

one body to another' .157 This belief may have influenced the 

way warriors fought, with their belief that entry into the 

afterlife was automatic, not determined by deeds done while 

living. These Iron Age warriors may have had an attitude to 

death comparable to the Scandinavian concept of Valhalla. 158 

Weapons and other items of everyday life found with burial 

remains suggest a belief in the afterlife by Iron Age 

Britons. 159 

These tribal people were polytheistic and worshipped 

many gods and goddesses. Some of the deities worshipped in 

relation to warfare were the horned gods Cernunnos and the 

Catuvellaunian Camulos, who gave his name to the oppida of 

Camulodunum. 160 The Iceni worshiped Andrasta, the 

goddess of victory. 161 Dio gives an account of the Iceni under 

Boudicca committing atrocities as a way of appeasing the 

goddess Andate (Andrasta). 162 Boudicca may have seen 

herself as an agent for her goddess. Each tribe would have 

worshipped local deities who may have also represented 

more peaceful aspects of Iron Age life, along with the more 

warlike past times. 163 

The people of Britain occupied the western comer of the 

Western European Iron Age and evolved culturally alongside 

those on the continent, however with distinct variations. The 

geographical, ethnic, political, economic, religious and 

martial features of the Iron Age Britons shaped the way they 

responded to the Roman invasions. These began with 

47 



Caesar's tentative raids in 55 and 54BC culminating in the 

full-scale invasion of 43AD. 

Reference Notes, Chapter One. 

1 Julius Caesar. The Battle for Gaul. Translated by A & P, Wiseman. London, Chatto and 
Windus. 1980, pp. 92-93 . 

2 For the purpose of this thesis, the western European Bronze and Iron Age will be referred 
to simply as the Iron or Bronze Age. 

3 S. James. Exploring the World of the Celts. London, Thames and Hudson Ltd. 1993, p. 48. 

4 Both Hallstatt and La Tene are named after archaeological sites in Europe. 

5 James. 1993, p. 14. 

6 P. B. Ellis. The Celtic Empire: The First Millennium of Celtic History J OOOBC-
51AD. London, Constable and Company Ltd. 1990, p. 13. 

7 E.M. Wighonan. Gallia Belgica. London, Batsford Ltd. 1985, p. 10. 

8 A. Ross and D. Robins. The Life and Death of a Druid Prince: The Story of an 
Archaeological Sensation. London, Rider. 1989, pp. 56 & 144. 

9 James. 1993, p. 110. 

10 D. MacAuley. The Celtic Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 1992, p. 2. 

u James. 1993, p. 10. 

12 P Russell. An /nJroduction to the Celtic Languages. Essex, Longman Group 
Limited. 1995, p. 9. 

13 G. Webster. Boudicca: The British Revolt Against Rome AD60. London, B.T. 
Batsford Ltd. 1978, pp. 29-30. 

14 Peddie. 1997, p. 5. 

15 Webster. 1978, pp. 30-31. 

16 J. Creighton. Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain. Cambridge, Cambridge 
University Press. 2000, p. 18. James. 1999, p. 40. 

17 James. 1999, p. 97. 

18 B. Cunliffe. Iron Age Comm.unities in Britain. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. 
1975, p. 89. 

19 Caesar. Book IV, 2. 

2° Cunliffe. 1975, p. 112. 

21 James. 1999, p. 103. 

48 



22 G. Webster. 'Fort and Town in Early Roman Britain: The Relationship of Civil and 
Military Sites in the Conquest and Early Settlement Phase of Roman Britain. ' In J.S. 
Wacher (Ed) The Civitas Capitals of Roman Britain. Leicester, Leicester University Press. 
1966, p. 31. James also lists the tribal grouping of the Belgae as a post-conquest creation. 
1999, p. 103. 

23 Caesar. Book I, 1. 

24 Cunliffe. 1975, p. 97. 

25 ibid. pp. 60-62. 

26 Webster. 1978, pp. 46-47. 

27 S. Frere. Britannia: A History of Roman Britain. (3rd Edition) London, Routledge 
&Kegan Paul Ltd. 1987, p. 35. 

28 G. Webster. Rome Against Caratacus. London, B.T. Batsford Ltd. 1981 , p. 14. Branigan. 
1985, p. 2. 

29 Wiseman and Wiseman. 1980, p. 92. Cunliffe also states that the Catuvellauni were of 
non-Belgic origin. Personal communication, 4th December 2003. 

3° Cunliffe.1975, pp. 60&62. Frere. 1987, p. 11. 

31 Webster. 1978, p. 33. 

32 J. War.her. A Ponrait of Roman Britain. London, Routledge. 2000, p. 16. 

33 B. Jones & D. Mattingly. An Atlas of Roman Britain. Oxford, Basil Blackwell 
Ltd. 1990, p. 4. 

34 ibid. p. 4. 

35 Wacher. 2000, p. 7. 

36 Wacher. 2000, p. 18; A. King. Exploring the Roman World: Roman Gaul and 
Germany. London, British Museum Publications. 1990, p. 105. 

37 Chapters three and four will look at the tactical benefit of using rivers in a 
defensive capacity. 

38 K. Dark & P. Dark. The Landscape of Roman Britain. Gloucestershire, Sutton Publishing. 
1997, p. 18. 

39 James. 1993, p. 63. 

40 In 400BC, a Gallic army made an incursion into Italy and sacked Rome in 390. 

41 Wiseman & P. Wiseman. 1980, p. 11. 

42 ibid. p. 12. 

43 James. 1993, p. 118. 

44 Cunliffe. 1975, p. 308. 

45 James describes large tribal power-blocs at the time of Caesar, such as the Aedui and the 
Arverni. See James. 1993, p. 46. 

49 



46 K.Branigan. The Catuvellauni. Gloucester, Alan Sutton Publishing Ltd. 1985, 
pp. 6-7. 

47 Caesar. Book V, 1. 

48 C. Haselgrove 'The Later Iron Age in Southern Britain and Beyond' in 
Research on Roman Britain 1960-89. London, The Society For the Promotion of 
Roman Studies. 1989 p 16. 

49 B. Cunliffe. Wessex to AD 1000. London, Longman Group. 1993, p. 211. 

5° Cunliffe. 1988, p. 157. 

51 ibid. p. 157. 

52 Cunliffe. 1975, p. 107. 

53 Ibid. Cunliffe claims that the Gangani of Northern Wales had cultural links to 
the tribe of the same name in Ireland. 

54 Northern Wales appears to have had a long tradition of trade with Ireland enabling the 
importation of items from Ireland, other parts of Britain and Northern Europe. See Cunliffe. 
1975, p. 51. 

55 P. Cherici. Celtic Sexuality: Power, Paradigms and Passion. London, Gerald 
Duckworth and Co Ltd. 1995, p. 132. 

56 Caesar. Book V, 1. L. Laing & I.Laing. Celtic Britain and Ireland: An and 
Society. London, BCA and The Herbert Press Ltd. 1995, p. 18. 

57 James. 1993, p. 7. 

58 Creighton. p. 4. 

59 Cunliffe. 1975, p. 227. James provides Danebury as an example that may have requiroo 
an 'organizing hand' in its construction. See James. 1993, p. 62. 

6° Creighton. p. 9. 

61 Dark & Dark. p. 12. 

62 The territories of Cunobelin were divided between his three sons Togodumnus, Caratacus 
and Adminius and his Brother Epaticcus. See Branigan. p. 30. 

63 Caesar. Book VI, 2. 

64 James. 1993, p. 120. 

65 Wightman. P. 24. 

66 Cunliffe. 1975, p. 70. 

67 Caesar. Book N, 2. 

68 A.L.F. Rivet. 'Summing Up: Some Historical Aspects of the Civitates of Roman Britain.' 
In J. S. Wacher (Ed) The Civitas Capitals of Roman Britain. Leicester, Leicester University 
Press. 1966,p. 102. 

50 



69 Cunliffe. 1975, p. 122. 

7° Cherici. p. 13 I. 

71 ibid. p. 131. 

72 ibid. p. 132. 

73 Cherici. p. 131. Ellis. 1990, p. 16. 

74 Ellis. 1990, p. 16. 

75 Caesar. Book VI, 2. 

76 P. B. Ellis. Caesar's Invasion of Britain. London, Orbis Publishing Limited 

1978, p. 43. 

77 James. 1993, p. 64. 

78 ibid. p. 64. Diodorus of Sicily. Bcxk V, 30. 

79 Ellis. 1990, p. 144. 

80 Diodorus of Sicily. Book V, 30. James. 1993, p. 66. A fifth century body was 
found in a bog Denmark wearing tartan, evidence that this fabric bas been around 
for a long time. 

81 P. B. Ellis. Celtic Women: Women in Celtic Society and Literature. London, Constable 
and Company. 1995, p. 104. 

82 ibid. p. 107. 

83 Caesar. Book VI, 2. 

84 Ellis. 1995, p. 77. 

85 Boudicca will be discussed in depth in chaptei- six. 

86 Chmci. p. 18. 

r1 Ellis. 1995, p. 141. 

88 ibid. p. 115. 

89 James. 1993, p. 53. 

90 W. Ruthei-ford. Celtic wre: The History of the Druids and their Timeless Traditions. 
London, The Aquarian Press. 1993, p. 26. 

91 Caesar. Book VI, 2. 

92 James. 1993, p. 90. 

93 Ross &Robins. pp. 145-146. 

94 Tacitus. The Annals. XIV, 30. 

95 Ross & Robins. p. 50. 

51 



96 Caesar. Book VI, 2. 

97 Laing & Laing. 1995, p. 41. 

98 James. 1993, pp. 80-81. 

99 Wigbttnan. p. 22. 

10° Caesar. Book IV, 2. 

101 The Arras culture cemeteries provide detailed examples of Iroo Age burials. See James. 
1993, pp. 100-102. 

102 Laing & Laing. 1995, p. 19. 

103 Wigbttnan. p. 23. 

104 Dark & Dark. p. 14. 

105 Ellis. 1995, p. 119 & Ellis. 1978, pp. ::!1-28. 

106 Cunliffe. 1988, p. 161. 

107 Cunliffe. 1993, p. 203. 

108 Cunliffe. 1988, p. 156. 

109 Jones & Mattingly. p. 57. Laing & Laing. 1995, p. 26. 

110 James. 1993. p. 62. 

111 Cunliffe. 1975, pp. 254 & 259-260. 

112 ibid, p. 98. Wacber. 2000, p. 25. 

113 Wacber. 2000, p. 25. 

114 James. 1993, pp. 55-57. 

115 Dark & Dark. pp. 83 & 87. 

116 Cllllliffe. 1975, pp. 256-259. 

117 Wacher. 2000, pp. 23-24. 

118 Dark & Dark. p. 13. 

119 Dark & Dark. p. 13 & Wightman. p. 16. 

12° Cllllliffe. 1975, pp. 80, 92-95 & 102. 

121 James. 1993, p. 119. 

122 Cllllliffe. 1975, pp. 84, 94 & 102. 

123 Wacber. 2000, pp. 26-27. 

124 Haselgrove. 1989, p. 8. 

52 



125 ibid. p. 7. 

126 I. Hodder & M. Millet. 'The Human Geography of Roman Britain' In Roberts. An 
Historical Geography of England and Wales. London, Academic Press. 1990, p. 37. 

127 King. p. 100. 

128 King. pp. 101-105; Dark & Dark. p. 112. 

129 Cunliffe. 1997, pp. 130-131. 

130 James. 1993, p. 70. 

131 ibid. p. 70. 

132 Cunliffe. 1993, p. 221. 

133 Tacitus. Tacitus on Britain and Germany. Translated by H. Mattingly. Middlesex, 
Penguin Books Ltd. 1948, p. 62. 

134 James. 1993, p. 75. 

135 Caesar. Book IV, 2. 

136 Webster. 1978, p. 28. James. 1993, p. 77. 

137 Ellis. 1978, p. 45 & James. 1993, p. 125 & Cunliffe. 1997, p. 7. 

138 Laing & Laing. 1995, p. 35. 

139 James. 1993, p. 77. 

140 Diodorus of Sicily. Book V, 30. Cunliffe. 1997, p. 96. 

141 James. 1993, p. 75. 

142 P. Wilcox. Rome 's Enemies 2: Gallic and British Celts. London, Osprey. 1985, p. 18. 

143 Polybius. The Rise of the Roman Empire. Middlesex, Penguin Books Ltd. 1979, p. 143. 

144 Cunliffe. 1997, p. 94. 

145 James. 1993, p. 112. 

146 Webster. 1978, p. 59. 

147 Wilcox. p. 21. 

148 Cunliffe. 1975, plate number 28. 

149 Cunliffe. 1997, p. 96. 

ISO Davis. p, 24. 

151 James. 1993, p. 78. 

152 Caesar. Book IV, 2. 

53 



153 ibid. 

154 Ross & Robin . p. 121. 

155 Webster. p. 83 . 

156 D.Oarke and A.Roberts. Twilight of the Celtic Gods: An Exploration of Britain 's Hidden 
Pagan Traditions. London, Blandfords. 1996, p. 34. 

157 Caesar. Book VI, 2. 

158 James. 1993, p. 89. 

159 Cunliffe. 1975, p. 298. 

160 ibid. p. 299. 

161 James. 1993, p. 89. 

162 C. Dio. Dio 's Roman History volume VIII. London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1961 Book 
LXII, 7 p. 95. 

163 B. Cunliffe. The Celtic World. Maidenhead, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1979, p. 74. 

54 



CHAPTER II 

THE BRITISH TRIBAL RESPONSE TO ROMAN 

INVASION. 

'Indeed, nothing has helped us more in war with their 

strongest nations than their inability to co-operate. It is 

seldom that two or three states unite to repel a common 

danger; fighting in detail they are conquered wholesale. ' 

Tacitus. 1 

The political framework of Iron Age Britain was divided into 

tribal groups that experienced a fluid exchange of political, 

military and trade alliances within Britain and across the 

Channel. The state of flux existing in southeast Britain 

leading up to Caesar' s raids and the invasion of Claudius 

created problems in assembling and maintaining a united 

front by British tribes in the face of Roman invasion. This 

chapter will consider whether tribal loyalties would have 

taken precedence over joining pan-British opposition to 

invasion, while discussing how Iron Age Britons reacted to 

Caesar' s military raids in 55 and 54BC and then the full­

scale Roman invasion in 43AD. This will be done on a tribe­

by-tribe basis highlighting military reactions and the reasons 

for differing responses to Roman invasion. 

In 55BC Caesar turned his eyes to the British Isles, thus 

bringing Britain into direct contact with the expanding 

Roman world. Three years earlier he had moved into Gaul 

defeating those who opposed him. Some had resisted while 

others sensed the changing face of Gallic politics and joined 

the Romans. 

The Gallic political environment, as discussed, was one of 

shifting alliances prompted by the jostling for power and the 

control of the movement of trade goods into and out of Gaul. 

55 



Caesar' s moves into Gaul shook the power balance and 

Rome's indirect intrigue in Gaul developed into raw military 

invasion. Caesar found that the British tribal military 

responses to his moves across the Channel in 55BC were 

equally as varied. 

In almost all his campaigning in Gaul, Caesar had noticed 

Britons fighting within the Gallic armies. 2 It is unclear how 

Caesar distinguished British warriors from Gallic ones 

although the practice of painting the body blue and shield 

shaped oval with concave ends were unique to B