The mighty Claudius

[Africanvs]

I've been reading a book called With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World, by Alfred S. Bradford. It's not the best book I have ever read, but it is a nice overview of warfare from the ancient near east, to India, to China, to Rome, etc. I am toward the end of the book and on to the bits about early Roman empire. While reading last night, I came across something I had never heard before. The exact lines from the book are these:

In 43 Claudius led 50,000 troops in an invasion of Britain. He found allies, the legions performed admirably, and the conquest proceeded apace. Claudius, gimpy-legged, ill-coordinated, and not young, arranged somehow to kill the British chieftain in single combat and thus became one of the few Romans ever to win the spoila opima (awarded to a Roman commander who kills the enemy commander in single combat).

It seems unlikely to me that Claudius would 1) take on such a challenge, and 2) actually win with such physical limitations. Can anyone tell me what Professor Bradford's source is for this information, and furthermore, what your opinions are on this?

[A Very Super Market]

I doubt it. Celts are often debated to be better in single combat than Romans, especially a chieftain, and I highly doubt Claudius' fighting abilities. Either made-up fiction, extremely poor judgement, or absolute bollocks.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I don't think Claudius even command troops, let alone fought in battle.

[Africanvs]

I don't think Claudius even command troops, let alone fought in battle.

1) All I have found so far is this from wikipedia. Source:

Claudius himself traveled to the island after the completion of initial offensives, bringing with him reinforcements and elephants. The latter must have made an impression on the Britons when they were used in the capture of Camulodunum. He left after 16 days, but remained in the provinces for some time. The Senate granted him a triumph for his efforts, as only members of the imperial family were allowed such honors. Claudius later lifted this restriction for some of his conquering generals. He was granted the honorific "Britannicus" but only accepted it on behalf of his son, never using the title himself.

2) That sounds much more likely than Claudius killing some chieftain 1-on-1. I always hate when I read something like this in a book because it makes me now doubt everything I have read.

3) Upon further research I have found that the chieftain in question who resisted Claudius' invasion of Britain would have had to be Caratacus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caratacus) It seems he was taken to Rome as a prisoner, likely to be executed in a triumph, but allowed an audience with the senate he gave the following speech and was allowed to live in peace in Rome. The words of Caratacus according to Tacitus, The Annals, translated by A. J. Woodman, 2004.

"If the degree of my nobility and fortune had been matched by moderation in success, I would have come to this City as a friend rather than a captive, nor would you have disdained to receive with a treaty of peace one sprung from brilliant ancestors and commanding a great many nations. But my present lot, disfiguring as it is for me, is magnificent for you. I had horses, men, arms, and wealth: what wonder if I was unwilling to lose them? If you wish to command everyone, does it really follow that everyone should accept your slavery? If I were now being handed over as one who had surrendered immediately, neither my fortune nor your glory would have achieved brilliance. It is also true that in my case any reprisal will be followed by oblivion. On the other hand, if you preserve me safe and sound, I shall be an eternal example of your clemency."

4) It is said that Caratacus was so impressed with Rome he said the following: Tacitus, The Annals, translated by A. J. Woodman, 2004

"And can you, then, who have got such possessions and so many of them, covet our poor
tents?"

5) Then there is also this from the wiki entry Conquest of Britain.

Plautius halted and sent word for Claudius to join him for the final push. Cassius Dio presents this as Plautius needing the emperor's assistance to defeat the resurgent British, who were determined to avenge Togodumnus. However, Claudius was no military man. Claudius's arch says he received the surrender of eleven kings without any loss, and Suetonius says that Claudius received the surrender of the Britons without battle or bloodshed. It is likely that the Catuvellauni were already as good as beaten, allowing the emperor to appear as conqueror on the final march on Camulodunum. Cassius Dio relates that he brought war elephants, although no remains of them have been discovered in Britain, and heavy armaments which would have overawed any remaining native resistance. Eleven tribes of South East Britain surrendered to Claudius and the Romans prepared to move further west and north. The Romans established their new capital at Camulodunum and Claudius returned to Rome to celebrate his victory. Caratacus escaped and would continue the resistance further west.

Sources: Arch of Claudius, Suetonius, Claudius

6) One would think that if an emperor were to defeat a British Chieftain in single combat, whether the emperor was physically disabled or not, someone would mention it. Looks like I'll have to write a letter to Professor Bradford and ask him where the hell he got this information. :book:

[Atilius]

In 43 Claudius led 50,000 troops in an invasion of Britain. He found allies, the legions performed admirably, and the conquest proceeded apace. Claudius, gimpy-legged, ill-coordinated, and not young, arranged somehow to kill the British chieftain in single combat and thus became one of the few Romans ever to win the spoila opima (awarded to a Roman commander who kills the enemy commander in single combat).
I wonder if the author is mistaking the emperor Claudius with the consul Marcus Claudius Marcellus, who was the last man to win the spolia opima. He slew the Gallic chieftain Vertomarus at the battle of Clastidium in 222 BC. That's sort of a big mistake though.

[kekailoa]

This is odd, because I'm just finishing reading I, Claudius Pt. 2.

That information sounds incredibly ridiculous. I wonder if he did make that mistake about Marcus Claudius Marcellus, but still, that's a pretty far stretch.

[Cambyses]

Great quotes from Tacitus. I was always taught he was more useful for telling us about how the Romans wanted to view events rather than actually teaching us about history however.

On the other hand, Im not sure I believe there was a sizeable chunk of Romans who felt guilty for conquering these uncorrupted free-spirited barbarians. The Romans appear by nature to be far more ruthless, selfish and bloodthirsty than that.

[Fluvius Camillus]

I don't really know, I do know that in the siege of Mediolanium the Roman commander killed the gallic commander in single combat.

Edit: What Atilius said:clown:

[Iskander 3.1]

Hmm...check Claudius' "autobiography"!

[Aemilius Paulus]

This does not seem right. Claudius was the bookish, contemplative/pensive, sickly, somewhat cowardly philosopher. He does not seem like the warrior type to me at all. I believe Atilius may be right in his epiphany.

[Africanvs]

I wonder if the author is mistaking the emperor Claudius with the consul Marcus Claudius Marcellus, who was the last man to win the spolia opima. He slew the Gallic chieftain Vertomarus at the battle of Clastidium in 222 BC. That's sort of a big mistake though.

1) I suppose it's possible but as you say, it is a very big mistake. Something like 300 years between the two events, one even in Gaul the other in Britain, and then there is the common sense element to it.

2) Further research into the spolia opima revealed this:

Over the course of their entire history, the Romans recognized only three instances of spolia opima having been taken. The first was by Romulus from Acro, king of the Caeninenses; the second by Aulus Cornelius Cossus from Lar Tolumnius, king of the Veientes; the third by Marcus Claudius Marcellus from Viridomarus, king of the Gaesatae (a Celtic warband). As the first two figures are legendary, or semi-legendary, it may be said that Marcus Claudius Marcellus is the only Roman figure ever to have accomplished this feat.

3) On a side note, as I was researching the Claudia Gens, I discovered another fact I didn't know. The name Claudius is likely derived from the word Claudeo, meaning to limp because many members of the Claudian family suffered from this, likely genetic, issue.

[Urg]

Maybe he is confusing Claudius with his father.

Suetonius' Life of Claudius begins with a short narration of Drusus' military achievements and death, and says:

"In him the civil and military virtues were equally displayed; for, besides his victories, he gained from the enemy the Spolia Opima, and frequently marked out the German chiefs in the midst of their army, and encountered them in single combat at the utmost hazard of his life."

There is some doubt about whether Drusus was in fact awarded the spolia or whether Suetonius is mistaken: (1999) 49 CQ 544

Cassius Dio briefly describes the emperor Claudius' role in Britain (LX: 21-22):

"Taking over command, he crossed the river and engaging the natives who had gathered at his approach, defeated them, and took Camelodunum [Colchester], the capital of Cunobelinus. As a result of this he won over numerous tribes, some on terms of surrender, others by force, and was saluted Imperator on several occasions - contrary to precedent; for no one may receive this title more than once for the same war. In addition he disarmed the Britons and handed them over to Plautius, whom he authorised to subjugate the remaining areas. Claudius himself hastened back to Rome, sending news of his victory on ahead by means of his sons-in-law, Magnus and Silanus.

When the Senate learned of these achievements, it awarded Claudius the title Britannicus and gave him permission to celebrate a triumph. They also voted to hold an annual festival and to erect two triumphal arches, one in Rome, the other in Gaul, from where he had put to sea when he crossed to Britain. They also bestowed on his son the same title, with the result that Britannicus came in a way to be the boy's actual name, and they granted Messalina the privilege that Livia had of sitting in the front seat at the theatre and the use of the carriage."

[Mulceber]

3) On a side note, as I was researching the Claudia Gens, I discovered another fact I didn't know. The name Claudius is likely derived from the word Claudeo, meaning to limp because many members of the Claudian family suffered from this, likely genetic, issue.

Yep. Heard it. They supposedly came to Rome VERY early in its history from one of the other Italian tribes and were accepted as part of the Roman aristocracy. Their name (I think) was something that sounded similar in another language, but because they tended to limp, and their name sounded like the latin verb to limp, their original name was corrupted into Claudius. Don't quote me on that though. -M

[Africanvs]

Yep. Heard it. They supposedly came to Rome VERY early in its history from one of the other Italian tribes and were accepted as part of the Roman aristocracy. Their name (I think) was something that sounded similar in another language, but because they tended to limp, and their name sounded like the latin verb to limp, their original name was corrupted into Claudius. Don't quote me on that though. -M

Indeed, that is also what I have found.

The gens Claudia was one of the oldest families in ancient Rome, and for centuries its members were regularly leaders of the city and empire.

The family was traditionally held to have begun with Attius Clausus, a Sabine who favored peace with Rome. Tacitus, Annals XI.23 This was an unpopular position that led to him leaving Regillus with his followers around 504 BC. Rome was welcoming however, making his followers citizens and giving them land, and making Appius Claudius Sabinus Inregillensis, as he was called in Latin, a senator. It is assumed that the name came from the Latin claudeo (to limp), as many of the family members were lame, probably from some congenital disorder.

[Urg]

...also, Caractacus was not the only chieftain/king that the Romans fought during the invasion. And Caractacus was not captured until well after Claudius returned to Rome (see Tacitus XII:36).

Claudius certainly spent most of his time in the city, and seems to have spent most of his time on matters of government. But there are a number of accounts of his interest in physical and military matters:

- Suetonius recounts Claudius' interest in spectacles and games

- Dio Cassius recounts a gladiatorial contest held and attended by Claudius

- Each of Tacitus, Dio Cassius and Suetonius refer to a sea-battle display on the Fucine lake which he organised

- Pliny the elder (Natural History, IX:14-15) gives an eye-witness account of Claudius' involvement in catching and killing a killer whale in Ostia harbour.

[Africanvs]

...also, Caractacus was not the only chieftain/king that the Romans fought during the invasion. And Caractacus was not captured until well after Claudius returned to Rome (see Tacitus XII:36).

Claudius certainly spent most of his time in the city, and seems to have spent most of his time on matters of government. But there are a number of accounts of his interest in physical and military matters:

- Suetonius recounts Claudius' interest in spectacles and games

- Dio Cassius recounts a gladiatorial contest held and attended by Claudius

- Each of Tacitus, Dio Cassius and Suetonius refer to a sea-battle display on the Fucine lake which he organised

- Pliny the elder (Natural History, IX:14-15) gives an eye-witness account of Claudius' involvement in catching and killing a killer whale in Ostia harbour.

1) It is true that Caratacus was not the only chieftain, but he was probably the primary enemy in the campaign. He did flee west and continue to resist and yeas, he was brought to Rome long after Claudius left. Then again, Calaudius was only in Britain for a short time, more than likely to simply participate in enough of the campaign to take credit.

2) I would say that being interested in and attending gladiatorial contests, and participating in a way that we cannot know in a whaling expedition, falls quite short of actually fighting in single combat and killing another person.

3) Whether it is plausible or not that Claudius could have killed this un-named British chieftain, if the author claimed it as fact in his book, he must have had a source, or it was as yourself and Atilius have proposed, a case of mistaken identity. In any case it doesn't seem that anyone writing during that time has mentioned anything about Claudius participating in any single combat.

[Macilrille]

Great quotes from Tacitus. I was always taught he was more useful for telling us about how the Romans wanted to view events rather than actually teaching us about history however.

On the other hand, Im not sure I believe there was a sizeable chunk of Romans who felt guilty for conquering these uncorrupted free-spirited barbarians. The Romans appear by nature to be far more ruthless, selfish and bloodthirsty than that.

What? The Romans was probably the most bloodthirsty, ruthless and ambitious Mediterrenean people there was, try reading W. V. Harris, "War and Imperialism in Republican Rome", he makes a convincing argument for what have always been my impression; that the Romans were ruthless, ambitious, warlike and bloodthirsty- that is after all, how one conquered the world before the advent of mass media and global markets ;-)

This quote "If you wish to command everyone, does it really follow that everyone should accept your slavery?" Says as much or more about Tacitus. Notice also this quote from "Agricola", "Agricola gave private encouragement and public aid to the building of temples, courts of justice and dwelling-houses, praising the energetic, and reproving the indolent. Thus an honourable rivalry took the place of compulsion. He likewise provided a liberal education for the sons of the chiefs, and showed such a preference for the natural powers of the Britons over the industry of the Gauls that they who lately disdained the tongue of Rome now coveted its eloquence. Hence, too, a liking sprang up for our style of dress, and the “toga” became fashionable. Step by step they were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant banquet. All this in their ignorance they called civilisation, when it was but a part of their servitude." The same attitude permeates Germania and the parts of The Annals dealing with Germans.

However, to think he or others felt bad about the conquests and romanisation of barbarians is to ascribe to them modern PC and softie attitudes that they did not have. The same people would enjoy the spectacle of the Games and all that they symbolised. Rather Tacitus is famous for being a firm republican, what he believed in and longed for was the freedom he percieved present in the Republic of Rome, but was no longer there. Tacitus has seen good emperors and some very bad (and had even had to cooperate with a bad one in denouncing and killing a Senator, self-recrimations for this, I think, furthered his admiration for the free and brave barbarians), and he longed for the Res Publica Romana where the welfare of the people of Rome was not dependant on the competence and whims of one man.

In earlier times some Roman Consuls did lead armies in person and participated in the fighting, including Gaius Julius Caesar, in fact they were expected to show bravery, though some like Publius Decius Mus possibly overdid it by Devotio, the emperors were different though, times had changed and though some emperors would be present at some really important campaigns, most would not until the deterioration of the Empire forced them to lead in person.

Edited to add. I must also sadly add a warning to believe everuthing a historian writes at face value. We too make mistakes, we too have agendas (consider for example Suvurov) and some of us even takes credit for what others write, etc. Take everything with a grain of salt, one source is no source!!!

[Ludens]

In earlier times some Roman Consuls did lead armies in person and participated in the fighting, including Gaius Julius Caesar, in fact they were expected to show bravery, though some like Publius Decius Mus possibly overdid it by Devotio, the emperors were different though, times had changed and though some emperors would be present at some really important campaigns, most would not until the deterioration of the Empire forced them to lead in person.

According to Goldsworthy, Romans generals were not expected to participate in the fighting, but to stay just behind the front lines to encourage his soldiers and notice bravery and cowardice. Most anecdotes about Roman aristocrats fighting are when they are serving as tribunes, not as praetors of consuls.

I quite agree with the rest of your post, though.

[Cambyses]

What? The Romans was probably the most bloodthirsty, ruthless and ambitious Mediterrenean people there was, try reading W. V. Harris, "War and Imperialism in Republican Rome", he makes a convincing argument for what have always been my impression; that the Romans were ruthless, ambitious, warlike and bloodthirsty- that is after all, how one conquered the world before the advent of mass media and global markets ;-)

I entirely agree with you that in general they would not feel "guilty" for the smae reasons we might do today. However, I do believe there was a section of Roman society that idealised the "barbarian" way of life due to its "natural" and "uncorrupted" nature. And furthermore this minority would view what we now call Romanisation as a corrupting influence on that ideal. Im aware that this is not a simplistic topic, but as you are clearly a knowledgeable historian I will assume you know what Im talking about without going into all the details here and now...

What I was hoping to express in my previous post is that, is that in my opinion it is partly this mentality that Tacitus is expressing through the mouth of Caratacus. I mean, the words he uses really dont seem appropriate for a captive British chieftain begging for his life - even assuming he spoke Latin and had some conept of the Roman mentality before his audience with the Senate. So I conclude either his speech was written for him by a Roman or Tacitus is simply performing the old trick of making historical characters say what he thinks they ought to /would have done rather than recording the truth.

Regardless, I am pretty confident that this notion "If you wish to command everyone, does it really follow that everyone should accept your slavery?" is a Roman one and did not spring for the first time from the tongue of Caratacus.

[Zeibek]

I entirely agree with you that in general they would not feel "guilty" for the smae reasons we might do today. However, I do believe there was a section of Roman society that idealised the "barbarian" way of life due to its "natural" and "uncorrupted" nature. And furthermore this minority would view what we now call Romanisation as a corrupting influence on that ideal. Im aware that this is not a simplistic topic, but as you are clearly a knowledgeable historian I will assume you know what Im talking about without going into all the details here and now...

Are you sure you have actually read about this and aren't simply unconsciously projecting your own views on romanisation into the ancient world? Sure, there was Tacitus and a few other intellectuals who questioned Rome's policies, but they could be compared to the Americans who were agaisnt the Iraq war after 9/11: a very small minority who hardly echoed the opinion of any conspecific segment of society. Also the fact that they resented Rome's genocidal policies doesn't mean that they in any way idealised "the barbarian way of life".

[Cambyses]

Are you sure you have actually read about this and aren't simply unconsciously projecting your own views on romanisation into the ancient world? Sure, there was Tacitus and a few other intellectuals who questioned Rome's policies, but they could be compared to the Americans who were agaisnt the Iraq war after 9/11: a very small minority who hardly echoed the opinion of any conspecific segment of society.

With the greatest respect, I did an entire module on how ancient people's defined themselves and others as part of the final year of my Ancient History degree. So yes, I know the theory. I am also aware that is is just that, a theory, and a great many people may not agree with it.

Of course you are absolutely right concerning the difference between the opinions of the average man on the street and the philosophical vogue of the day. But the difference between ancient societies and modern is that with the overwhelming majority of the population disenfranchised from any meaningful power, a small number of opinion formers and decision makers could have a vast impact.

The basis of the argument is not concerning the barbarians - inevitably. It is more that many ancient peoples (especially the more conservative societies, ie Rome) tended to look back to their own past at the time before they were an empire - or during their ascension to it - as a time when people were better, life was simpler etc. On a very simple level, certain Greeks after the Persian wars bemoaned the spread of "barbarian/foreign" customs in their cities, such as excessive attention to oiling their hair etc, as it was seen as a corruption and weakening of the traditional virtues of the state. ie "this is what we were, but our contact with others in changing our nature, that is bad".

The Romans - to a certain extent shared these views - as can be seen in some of the reforms of Octavian, re morality, marriage etc etc. Then, considering their own "modern" society corrupt, due to their increased wealth and power, it was tempting to look at the supposedly simpler "barbarian" societies as a doorway into their own past. "That is what we used to be like before we became corrupted".

Clearly the more progressive people in the society, would not see increased education and awareness as negative, but if you are part of the elite than as often as not change is bad. The theory goes, not that the Romans felt "guilty" from replacing other people's existing culture with their own - but that they were bringing the evils of civilisation and inflicting them on a more virtuous people.

Anyway, the point I was making isnt that I subscribe to this theory, simply that Tacitus is setting Caratacus up to be the mouthpiece of Roman views about themselves, and quite possibly has very little to do (apart from obvious shared sentiments) with the actual views and opinions of contemporary Britons.

[Africanvs]

With the greatest respect, I did an entire module on how ancient people's defined themselves and others as part of the final year of my Ancient History degree. So yes, I know the theory. I am also aware that is is just that, a theory, and a great many people may not agree with it.

Of course you are absolutely right concerning the difference between the opinions of the average man on the street and the philosophical vogue of the day. But the difference between ancient societies and modern is that with the overwhelming majority of the population disenfranchised from any meaningful power, a small number of opinion formers and decision makers could have a vast impact.

The basis of the argument is not concerning the barbarians - inevitably. It is more that many ancient peoples (especially the more conservative societies, ie Rome) tended to look back to their own past at the time before they were an empire - or during their ascension to it - as a time when people were better, life was simpler etc. On a very simple level, certain Greeks after the Persian wars bemoaned the spread of "barbarian/foreign" customs in their cities, such as excessive attention to oiling their hair etc, as it was seen as a corruption and weakening of the traditional virtues of the state. ie "this is what we were, but our contact with others in changing our nature, that is bad".

The Romans - to a certain extent shared these views - as can be seen in some of the reforms of Octavian, re morality, marriage etc etc. Then, considering their own "modern" society corrupt, due to their increased wealth and power, it was tempting to look at the supposedly simpler "barbarian" societies as a doorway into their own past. "That is what we used to be like before we became corrupted".

Clearly the more progressive people in the society, would not see increased education and awareness as negative, but if you are part of the elite than as often as not change is bad. The theory goes, not that the Romans felt "guilty" from replacing other people's existing culture with their own - but that they were bringing the evils of civilisation and inflicting them on a more virtuous people.

Anyway, the point I was making isnt that I subscribe to this theory, simply that Tacitus is setting Caratacus up to be the mouthpiece of Roman views about themselves, and quite possibly has very little to do (apart from obvious shared sentiments) with the actual views and opinions of contemporary Britons.


That's an interesting theory you have. I can only speak for myself, but there have been many times that I have looked at a simpler society and wondered if we weren't better off without all of our technology and "civilization." I imagine there were ancient Romans who felt the same. I believe it is incorrect however to assume that a foriegner, even someone the Romans labeled "barbarian" could not be highly intelligent and capable of making such a speech. There are many cases throughout history where these "barbarians" have gained prestige and demonstrated intelligence. Take for example Priscus reporting of a state banquet with Attila where Attila uses merely a wooden plate and a wooden cup while the other guests are offered gold and silver cups. Attila is making a statement that he is not impressed by such trivial things. Arminius the German served in the Roman army and achieved both citizenship and equestrian rank. At any rate the Britons traded extensively with Romanized Gauls and many of them must have spoken Latin. While I am sure that many speeches and quotes made by both Roman characters, and barbarian in these histories have been embellished, if not entirely made up, whatever Caratacus said saved his life, and he was able to live out his days on land provided by the state. As another person said, I believe the people who felt that Romanzation was not necessarily a good thing were an enlightened minorit. For the majority of Romans, new conquests meant spoils for the army, fresh slaves, glory for generals, new land to colonize, and one more people subjugated who couldn't attack the empire. To be fair, the collapse of the empire really began when the empire stopped expanding, and tried to maintain a set border.