Was there a Kingdom of Britain before Caesar?

I was just wondering about this, having looked into some hitherto unknown to me sources. One of these is the Holinshed's Chronicles. In this there is a list of kings of Britain, predating Casar's invasion. The Chronicles even point out this dichotomy of histories when they deal with the King Cassibellane (clearly Cassivelaunus).

Now, there are some glaring inconsistencies - such as Nenius, the brother of Cassibellane having slewn Labienus during Caesar's first 'invasion' - but there are, apparently, various sources from whence these histories come - including a source from Scottish historians regarding the King of the "Albanians"?! (Albions?)(and these I am going to seek out, though likely they will be difficult to find) and some of it just makes, to my mind, sense.

Caesar's recount of this first visit to ritain even reads like someone covering up a defeat - and that's what the chronicles say he faced, a crushing defeat. This makes sense of the reaction of the Gauls on his return; emboldened by the news of their defeat they surround the Roman army and demand that they put down their weapons...

Had Caesar sent envoys to destabilise the Kingdom prior to his invasion? Is that why Commius was arrested? It seems strange that certain tribes were so quick to come to Caesar with hostages....

So, I wonder whether he had offered these tribes independence from the 'legal' overlordship of the Cassivellaunus (likely a title rather than a name..) - perhaps seeking out the Casse themselves first off. Were these tribal leaders and nobles looking to Rome to exert their power over a direct kingship? That would explain a number of things. First off, why Cassivelaunus attacked and slew Imanuentius of the Trinovantes - enforcing the law in a typically Celtic manner, and why Mandubracius then went to Caesar for aid.

This would explain the appearance of the Catuvellauni (the followers or smiters of Vellaunus), as what we might regard as a proto regnal loyalist faction, and why there are (as quoted on EB) references to Cassivellaunus as the true or rightful king of Britain...

Just thought I'd share what I've gleened so far, and hpe for some discussion on this subject.

As a sidenote, it also refers to Kymbeline/Cymbeline (Cunobelin) as having been brought up in Rome....

Sorry, should have posted this earlier; a great on-line resource for the Holinshed Chronicles at http://www.english.ox.ac.uk/holinshed/

Cassivelaunos was the king of the Cassivelauni, but he could be considered the "High King" of southern Britain. The chieftains of the Cantii, the tribe who faced Caesar first, went to ask for his aid. With Cassivelaunos came also the Atrebates and the Trinovantes.
Another proof of his authority can be found in his order sent to the four Cantii chieftains to attack the roman base camp, in order to relieve pressure on the Cassivelauni, so that they could reorganize.
Commios was the intended pro-roman ruler for the Atrebates by Caesar, also he acted as ambassador to Cassivelaunos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Cassivelaunos was the king of the Cassivelauni, but he could be considered the "High King" of southern Britain. The chieftains of the Cantii, the tribe who faced Caesar first, went to ask for his aid. With Cassivelaunos came also the Atrebates and the Trinovantes.
Another proof of his authority can be found in his order sent to the four Cantii chieftains to attack the roman base camp, in order to relieve pressure on the Cassivelauni, so that they could reorganize.
Commios was the intended pro-roman ruler for the Atrebates by Caesar, also he acted as ambassador to Cassivelaunos.

---

Indeed, even within Caesar's own recount there are hints as to the true nature of the politics of Britain at this time, but he is at some pains to describe Britain as a set of independent tribes - I'm just wondering how much this was the case prior to Caesar's involvement.

There are references within the Gallic Wars to previous Kingships among the tribes of Gaul, and indeed sovereignty by one tribe over others and that got me thinking about how these areas were manipulated politically by Rome. Why, for instance, after Bituitus was defeated by Quintus Fabius Maximus were the Arverni - unlike their allies the Allobroges - allowed their independence? It seems to me that they were utilised to undermine the Aedui, who were becoming a force within Gaul. What the Romans didn't want was to have a unified Gallic 'state' over the Alps, and without the Arverni interfering and warring with them, there was a possibility that the Aedui might gain suzerainty over all of Gaul (well, if one ignores the tribes known as the Belgae, of course).

The Romans recognised this by treating the Aedui (on the surface) as "friends and kinsmen of Rome", but they seemed quite happy, in fact, to let the Aedui be battered from all sides (making treaties with the Sweboz, for instance, instead of coming to their aid).

Its too easy to perceive the Aedui as pro-Roman, and the Arverni as anti-Roman because of these positions, and the rise to power later of the Arverni noble we know as Vercingetorix, but that ignores that Vercingetorix was, essentially, a renegade of the Arverni - he had to overthrow the 'legal' Arverni leadership in order to campaign against Caesar.

What is the point of all of this rambling? Well, that the Romans looked to use factional instability both between and within the Celtic tribes in order to strengthen their position (or rather, to weaken the opponent - divide and conquer), and that I don't believe that this is a policy that was designed around the Gauls/Celts simply because of some perceived ethno-cultural weakness on their part (though there was certainly an element of this), but rather that this displays the nature of the internal politics of Rome as much as it demonstrates their external policies.

So, back to the original missive; we see that consequent to Caesar's brief campaigns in Britain (military campaigns, at least) there was an attempt by the Catuvellauni to re-consolidate their sovereignty, rather than what is normally perceived as an attempt at sovereignty simply after the event.

In other words, without the political and brief military interventions of Caesar at this time, the later invasion of Britain might have been a very different prospect.

About the pro-Roman and anti-Roman, in every tribe there were "parties" divided. For example Dumnorix and Divitiacos.
The Allobroges it is possible that they were "controlled" due to their territory sharing border with the expanding republic. I remember that around 63 BC they complained for maladministration.
The Arverni saw their "kingdom" and alliances fall apart, having a pro-Roman oligarchy maybe was enough to keep the divide et impera...
For the invasion during the principate, the situation was quite similar: Caratacos expanded against the Atrebates/Cassivelaunos against the Trinovantes; same "High King" authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

About the pro-Roman and anti-Roman, in every tribe there were "parties" divided. For example Dumnorix and Divitiacos.

---

Absolutely, that is exactly my point. That one cannot simply judge the Gallic tribes as single, homogeneous entities; that they were, within themselves, divided polities, a situation well understood by the Romans, as much because of their own internal politics as well as from their allies within the various Gallic polities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

The Allobroges it is possible that they were "controlled" due to their territory sharing border with the expanding republic. I remember that around 63 BC they complained for maladministration.
The Arverni saw their "kingdom" and alliances fall apart, having a pro-Roman oligarchy maybe was enough to keep the divide et impera...

---

The situation the Allobroges found themselves in is what one would have expected from the Romans, especially - as you say - given the proximity of their lands to Roman provinces. It is that the Arverni were allowed to keep their independence that, to me, is the puzzle. It is most un-Roman to allow a defeated polity their independence (without even so much as tribute(or hostages?), if we are to believe Caesar), and so that leads to the question, why? Why were the Arverni allowed their 'independence'? Or, to put it another way, were they independent in reality, or were they simply given the appearance of independence so as not to undermine their (the Romans) relations with the Aedui?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

For the invasion during the principate, the situation was quite similar: Caratacos expanded against the Atrebates/Cassivelaunos against the Trinovantes; same "High King" authority.

---

Quite similar, but not the same. The Catuvellauni had to re-expand their sovereignty, which is a lot more expensive than simply consolidating and protecting it. There were (I believe) many Roman backed leaders within those territories that resisted the Catuvellauni (which can be seen in the number of them that went forth to plead with Roman Emperors, as well as that at least one of them had with them a Roman moneyer), and one can only wonder at the financial aid (at least) that they received in their resistance.

As I said, the later invasion of Britain was greatly assisted, imo, by the earlier machinations of Caesar..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

Catuvellauni (the followers or smiters of Vellaunus)]

---

This is usually glossed as Catu (battle) + Uellanoi (lords, chiefs, or possibly 'good ones',).



Otherwise, well, there are no sources for pre-Roman British history, and not much for Roman British history either: Caesar, Tacitus, a few mentions in Suetonius.

So, just a couple of observations for the moment.

1. There is no positive archaeological evidence for a united Britain during the pre-Roman period. But let us ask what one means by 'united'? If you mean a strong, centralized monarchy, I feel it is safe to say that this is almost certainly not the case. If you are talking about an individual being well-known, respected or even feared, well, there is no way of knowing that at all.

2. The ethnographic information that we have about Britain all comes from Graeco-Roman sources. It is completely possible (and in my mind, highly likely) that the Romans imposed a hierarchical and categorized system where it might not have had perfect congruence. The 'tribes' of Britain might well be at least partly Roman constructs, creating a series of well-demarcated areas of land-ownership and political ascendancy for the convenience of Roman tax-collectors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oudysseos

This is usually glossed as Catu (battle) + Uellanoi (lords, chiefs, or possibly 'good ones',).

---

I've seen Catu given as followers or smiters..., but proto-Celtic, let alone any possible early Brythonnic language is always going to be a matter of conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oudysseos

Otherwise, well, there are no sources for pre-Roman British history, and not much for Roman British history either: Caesar, Tacitus, a few mentions in Suetonius.

---

Hmmmm... not sure I agree with this. There are various sources, usually at least semi-mythical, based upon the verbal histories passed down through songs and stories. As with the Irish histories (though to a lesser extent) these have come down to us through the works of early writers compiling them, and thence through following 'historians'. Unfortunately they appear to be horribly mutilated, mythologised further and further by countless re-appraisals, usually based around whatever political necessities were deemed appropriate at the time (much like much of the work of the Roman writers, or forever, for that matter).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oudysseos

So, just a couple of observations for the moment.

1. There is no positive archaeological evidence for a united Britain during the pre-Roman period. But let us ask what one means by 'united'? If you mean a strong, centralized monarchy, I feel it is safe to say that this is almost certainly not the case. If you are talking about an individual being well-known, respected or even feared, well, there is no way of knowing that at all.

2. The ethnographic information that we have about Britain all comes from Graeco-Roman sources. It is completely possible (and in my mind, highly likely) that the Romans imposed a hierarchical and categorized system where it might not have had perfect congruence. The 'tribes' of Britain might well be at least partly Roman constructs, creating a series of well-demarcated areas of land-ownership and political ascendancy for the convenience of Roman tax-collectors.

---

To the point about positive archaeological evidence, I'll re-iterate my point regarding the written accounts. I feel that we have been seduced by the Romans and their version of events for far too long. If you look at the excavations that have been pursued, you will find that they are generally looking for evidence of the Romans, certainly I know of very few (other than those regarding what obvious landmarks were very clearly never 'Romanised' - hill-forts and the like) archaeological digs that have tried to look beyond the earliest Roman establishments.

Bear in mind that Caesar describes the Britons as viewing fortified forests as their "cities"...., against which there is positive archaeological evidence, and this is remarkably similar to the later descriptions offered of the Scots. There is a tendency, maybe even a requirement, for the Romans to portray themselves as the civilisers of the world, and to dismiss those conquered lands as barbarian, lacking in 'decent' values.

As an example, imagine if Hitler had managed to pursue his somewhat twisted dream of German Imperium to it's conclusion; what would we know, from any history passed down by them, of the Jewish or Slavic cultures? (And I don't think this is as outlandish a simily as some might think - just read Cicero's defence of Fontelius on charges of extorting the Gauls..)

I agree, though, that we are not looking here for a Kingship as we might understand it now, but an almost feudal type, where the tribes were obliged to the over-King.

As to the tribes being Roman inventions... it seems certain that there was a nobility within the various regions attributed as tribes, otherwise who was there to collect tax from? I think that this may well have been the major problem that the Romans faced in Scotland (where much smaller, much more scattered and independent tribe/pagi/clans existed).

As you have rightly pointed out, any such 'kingdom' would have covered a much smaller area than we would now regard as Britain, but inscriptions making allusion to a true or rightful King of Britain certainly point to an understanding of a 'legal' kingship over a broader range that just one single tribe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

semi-mythical

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

but inscriptions making allusion to a true or rightful King of Britain certainly point to an understanding of a 'legal' kingship over a broader range that just one single tribe.

---

Where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

I've seen Catu given as followers or smiters..., but proto-Celtic, let alone any possible early Brythonnic language is always going to be a matter of conjecture.

---

Often, but not always:

Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia
https://img534.imageshack.us/img534/...00701at183.png
https://img820.imageshack.us/img820/...00701at183.png

Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic, Ranko Matasovic
https://img534.imageshack.us/img534/...00701at184.png
https://img24.imageshack.us/img24/19...00701at184.png

First off, I want to say that I think my posts have been a little curt as of late, and not just here. I am sorry if that gives off a bad vibe or negative tone, things that I do not intend. What it is, is a lack of time to fully respond, but a desire to say something - not much of an excuse, as it is so easy to appear rude on the internet without even trying. So.

I haven't asked, because I assumed that you have already seen the Pritanoi preview on the EBII forums: the third post in particular contains a long historical essay, setting out the basic framework for understanding Iron Age Britain. You also really really need to have a look at Barry Cunliffe's Iron Age Communities in Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

There are various sources, usually at least semi-mythical, based upon the verbal histories passed down through songs and stories. As with the Irish histories (though to a lesser extent) these have come down to us through the works of early writers compiling them, and thence through following 'historians'. Unfortunately they appear to be horribly mutilated, mythologised further and further by countless re-appraisals, usually based around whatever political necessities were deemed appropriate at the time (much like much of the work of the Roman writers, or forever, for that matter).

---

I'm not particularly familiar with Holinshed's Chronicles, having only ever heard about them tangentially in relation to Shakespeare. However, it seems clear that the portion that we are concerned with is likely derived from Geoffrey of Monmouth, who I am reasonably familiar with. His Historia Regum Britannia (HRB) is not a reliable source of real information about the pre-Roman period or indeed about any period. Even some of Geoff's contemporaries thought so, and I am confident that you could not find a reputable, main-stream modern scholar who thinks that the HRB is history. Even the earlier works that are usually cited as the HRB's source material (Gildas, Nennius, and Bede) are not used by the leading historians of lPRIA (Cunliffe, Mattingly et al) as source material.

So the question of what, if anything, is accurate or important information in any of these works is basically insoluble. There is no way to test (confirm or deny) any theory that you might construct about the list of pre-Roman kings from Geoffrey or any other part of it, leaving us only with prejudices and pre-conceived notions: if you are inclined to believe in a 'Kingdom of Britain', then you will find evidence of it that seems credible to you no matter what.

I am not trying to be holier-than-thou, and I will reveal something that wasn't in the preview: I did turn to Geoffrey for inspiration when I was working on the starting family tree for the Pritanoi faction. Since we have zero information about historical individuals from the 3rd BCE, I had to make up a starting Faction Leader (this can't be random), so I looked at Monmouth's King List from what I thought was the right time period (he has no dates, and there are lots of obvious errors in his list), and picked a name that seemed to be Celtic in origin: but there is no claim that this was a real person (the earliest Briton known to history is Cassivellaunus).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

To the point about positive archaeological evidence, I'll re-iterate my point regarding the written accounts. I feel that we have been seduced by the Romans and their version of events for far too long. If you look at the excavations that have been pursued, you will find that they are generally looking for evidence of the Romans, certainly I know of very few (other than those regarding what obvious landmarks were very clearly never 'Romanised' - hill-forts and the like) archaeological digs that have tried to look beyond the earliest Roman establishments.

---

This is not quite true, although 'popular' history certainly focuses on Roman Britain to a great extent. But there have been quite a few very serious, long term excavations of pre-Roman Britain; Danebury by Cunliffe is one, and there have been investigations of the Hayling Island shrine, surveys of settlement patterns and land usage, and various excavations of round-houses, brochs and crannogs. Again, I have to urge you to read some of the more modern material, like Cunliffe and Mattingly. The phrase 'seduced by the Romans' is also a little unfair: historians and archaeologists naturally gravitate towards the subjects on which there is material to work with: there is more Roman-era British historical and archaeological information than there is form earlier periods. It's not that the establishment doesn't care about the narrative of pre-Roman history, it's just that there isn't as much to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

As you have rightly pointed out, any such 'kingdom' would have covered a much smaller area than we would now regard as Britain, but inscriptions making allusion to a true or rightful King of Britain certainly point to an understanding of a 'legal' kingship over a broader range that just one single tribe.

---

I think that we have to define some terms and times: I don't think that any claim for a 'High King of Britain' can be much sustained before the 50s BCE, if that early. Cunobelinus is really the only person whose coinage could support such a notion, and that only in a limited area of south-east England in the first half of the 1st century AD. No doubt he was a formidable ruler - but there is no positive evidence that his rule was anything but personal and limited to his lifetime. He used the term 'King' on his coins - but this does not mean that there was an agreed-upon concept of 'High King of Britain' that he or anyone else could aspire to, or that anyone was the 'rightful' King due to his birth. This really is a later retrojection of wishful thinking from a period when Britain could really have used a strong High King.



Ultimately, my position is that there is enough to learn about Iron Age Britain without turning to pseudo-historical sources: they are not necessary.


EDIT: Here are some excerpts from an article in Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia that you might find interesting.

Historia Regum Britanniae (‘The History of the Kings of Britain’) is the common title, given since the 1587 (Commelinus) edition, of a largely fictitious history of pre-Saxon Britain written by Geoffrey of Monmouth, which first appeared c. 1139. The work greatly influenced the writing of history and Arthurian literature until the end of the Middle Ages, and continued to influence Welsh and Breton historiography into early modern times. The author and contents of the Historia are discussed at length in the article on Geoffrey. The work shows considerable interest in, and bias towards, the Bretons, and many of Geoffrey’s spellings of proper names resemble Old Breton spelling more than Old Welsh. There was a considerable Breton presence in Monmouth (Welsh Trefynwy) from the late 11th century.

There is general agreement about the types of pre-Norman Welsh sources to which Geoffrey of Monmouth had access when he wrote the Historia Regum Britanniae. These include Gildas’s De Excidio Britanniae, Historia Brittonum, Annales Cambriae, Old Welsh genealogies similar to those surviving in London, British Library MS Harley 3859, and saints’ lives similar to those in the Book of Llandaf. The Historia was especially popular in Wales (Cymru): Welsh translations began to be produced by the earlier 13th century (see Brut y Brenhinedd). There are approximately 60 extant manuscripts which contain Welsh-language versions of the Historia Regum Britanniae (see Griscom 585–99; Brynley F. Roberts, Brut y Brenhinedd xxiv–xxxix). As translation literature whose source is extant, the Brutiau (Chronicles) are often regarded as being of secondary importance. However, it should be borne in mind that these are not straight translations in the modern sense. Welsh tradition frequently reasserts itself in Geoffrey’s text in the areas of proper names and the alteration or supplementation of narrative content. For example, the Llanstephan 1 version inserts the native mythological tale Cyfranc Lludd a Llefelys.


Legendary history of the Celtic peoples

§1. definitions and background

The terms ‘legendary history’, ‘synthetic history’, and ‘pseudo-history’, used more or less interchangeably, designate ostensibly historical writing which deals with a period prior to that for which authentic historical documentation is available. In practice, such writing reflects the endeavours of a learned class to knit together pre-existing legends, supplementing these with speculation and fresh invention, in order to create a framework which is internally coherent, and also compatible with established historical models. The most prominent pagan example is that of Rome. Culturally dependent upon the Greeks, and lacking traditions which connected them with the wider scheme of things, Roman historians put forward the claim that their city’s founders were the descendants of refugees from the fall of Troy, the central incident of Greek epic tradition (see trojan legends). This doctrine in turn exercised a powerful influence on subsequent pseudo-historians.

In a Christian context, the foreign model to which native traditions had to be accommodated was represented by the Bible, as interpreted and elaborated upon by the Fathers of the Church. Here, the stakes were higher than in the Roman case, since, besides commanding cultural prestige, the Church laid claim to supreme authority in matters of belief. In early medieval Europe, certain Christian sources seem to have been especially influential.
Foremost among these was of course the Bible itself, specifically those early chapters of the Book of Genesis which deal with mankind as a whole. The enumeration of the descendants of Noah, and the account of the dispersion of races and languages at Babel, were of particular interest to those seeking clues to their own people’s origins in the Scriptures. With the official toleration of Christianity under the Emperor Constantine (ad 313), the Church sought to co-ordinate Biblical tradition with pagan historiography. Eusebius of Caesarea (†340) produced a massive Chronicle which covered all of history since the birth of Abraham: it was schematically arranged in a series of columns (for Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Romans, Israelites, &c.), allowing events throughout the world to be synchronized with one another year by year. The Chronicle was translated into Latin and brought down to his own times by St Jerome (†420), and periodically updated by subsequent writers such as Isidore of Seville (†636) and Beda (†735). The Eusebian scheme
had great attractions for later pseudo-historians. Besides the abundant information which it contained, it provided a chronological scaffolding to which further peoples could be attached. Synchronisms of legendary events with sacred history, or with the ‘world kingships’ which Eusebius employed as chronological subdivisions, are particularly clear symptoms of the system’s influence.
The sack of Rome by the Visigoths in ad 410, a catastrophe which many attributed to the abandonment of the old religion, stimulated some writers to develop a theology of history through which such events could be understood in Christian terms. St Augustine’s Civitas Dei (City of God; 413–26) is the most impressive of the works produced to meet this need: its great impact in the Middle Ages probably owed as much to the concrete information which it contained as to the arguments which it proposed. Orosius’ more anecdotal Historiae Adversus Paganos (History against the pagans; 417) was also widely read.

Beginning in the later patristic period with histories
of the eastern and western Goths by Cassiodorus
(†c. 583) and Isidore respectively, a series of writers
began to furnish accounts of the origins of various
barbarian peoples who had occupied territories of the
former Roman Empire. Histories of the Franks are
particularly well represented in this period. Already in
the 7th century, we find the claim that the Franks, like
the Romans, derive from Troy. It is possible that the
Franks took this idea over from their Gallo-Roman
predecessors: Ammianus Marcellinus, writing
in the 4th century, mentions the theory of a Trojan
origin among the notions then current regarding the
peopling of Gaul (Rolfe, Ammianus Marcellinus 1.178–
9; see further below and trojan legends). §2. Gaul
We have no lengthy literary text of legendary history
from ancient Gaul—neither in the vernacular, like
the Middle Irish Lebar Gabála Érenn, nor in Latin,
like the pseudo-historical material in the Historia
Brittonum. The druids did have doctrines concerning
the origins of the Gauls (see below) but, in
light of Caesar’s well-known statement regarding the
druids’ unwillingness to commit their teachings to
writing (De Bello Gallico 6.14), it is inherently unlikely
that any written pseudo-history would have been produced
in pre-Roman Gaul, and there are no references
to any. On the other hand, we do have, within
the extant Greek and Roman accounts of the
ancient Continental Celts, numerous traditional
stories of origins which go back to the remote and
prehistoric past, and these show points of comparison
with the legendary histories of the medieval Celtic
countries. Since this material has always been
mediated to us through Greek and/or Roman writers,
we cannot be immediately certain to what extent the
classical authors have shaped these traditions according
to familiar literary models (see interpretatio
Romana), as opposed to accurately recording Gaulish
oral tradition. Greek or Roman content is to be expected,
especially in a case such as the versions of
the foundation legend of Massalia (Marseilles),
which has not only come down to us exclusively through
Greek, but also celebrates the foundation of a Greek
colony on the fringe of Celtic territory. Nonetheless,
this legend pivotally involves Celtic characters and
Celtic proper names (for example, the tribe Segobrigii
and princess Petta), as well as showing parallels with
foundation legends from the medieval Celtic
literatures, such as Echtra Mac nEchach Mug-medóin (a
foundation legend of the Uí Néill dynasty) or the
legend of the conception of St Iudic-hael.
Origin legends from Gaul frequently contain eponymous
(namesake) founders comparable to Éremón
Mac Míled of Ériu (Ireland), Goídel Glas of
the Gaels, or Britto or Brutus of the Britons (see below). For example, the story of the foundation of
Gaul preserved by Diodorus Siculus tells of the
union of the gigantic and beautiful daughter of an
ancient king of Celtica with Hercules producing a hero
and leader named Galateis, from whom the Gauls
(Greek Galataí Galatae) were named. (This story is
quoted at length in the article on Hercules.)
Many of the colourful descriptions preserved of the
invasion of Greece in 280–78 bc by the Gauls under
Bolgios or Belgios and Brennos of the Prausi have
the flavour of hero tales as opposed to history. Thus,
according to Timagenes (a Greek writer of the 1st
century bc) as preserved by Strabo (6.1.12–13), the
treasures deposited in the pools of Tolosa (Toulouse)
were said to have been the sacred treasure from Delphi
carried back to Gaul by retreating warriors; this watery
deposition acted as a talisman preserving the sovereignty
of the Tectosages in south-west Gaul until it
was looted a second time by the conquering Roman
general Caepio in 106 bc.
Ammianus Marcellinus provides an account of
doctrines promulgated by the druids concerning the
origins of the population of Gaul:
The Drysidae [druids] say that a part of the people
[of Gaul] was in fact indigenous, but that others
had poured in from remote islands and the regions
across the Rhine, driven from their homes by
continual wars and by the inundation of stormy sea.
Some assert that after the destruction of Troy a few
of those who fled from the Greeks and were scattered
everywhere occupied those regions, which
were then deserted. But the inhabitants of those
countries affirm this beyond all else, and I have
also read it inscribed upon their monuments, that
Hercules, the son of Amphytrion, hastened to destroy
the cruel tyrants Geryon and Tauriscus, of
whom one oppressed Spain, the other, Gaul; and
having overcome them both that he took to wife
some high-born women and begat numerous children,
who called by their own names the districts
that they ruled . . . (15.9, trans. Rolfe 1.179)
A variety of traditions is summed up in the foregoing,
including a précis of the Hercules tale, somewhat
different from the version of Diodorus. We recognize
also ancient Gaulish flood legends. The mention of
migrants from insulae extimae (furthest islands), together with Caesar’s statement that the druids’ teaching
was said to have originated in Britain (De Bello
Gallico 6.13), may be taken to suggest that some Gauls
claimed British or possibly even Irish origin. There
seem to be two different versions of a legend of eastern
origin. Caesar is quite clear on the point that
people called Belgae in north-east Gaul were said to
have migrated from east of the Rhine and that the
like-named Belgae of Britain had recently (in Caesar’s
day) migrated from Gaul. It is thus likely that the
Belgae—like the Tectosages of south-west Gaul—preserved
legends of the veterans of the invasion of
Greece as their founders and that they counted the
war leader Belgios as their eponymous founder (Koch,
CMCS 20.1–20). Thus, a Trojan legend recognizably
akin to the epic of Roman origins, the Aeneid, may
have been adopted by Gauls, who already possessed
their own account centred on the westward flight of
heroes who had been nearly annihilated in an epic
struggle against the Greeks. Ammianus’ attribution
of this information to the earlier author Timagenes
leaves it unlikely that the Gauls could have first
adopted the Trojan story as a direct response to the
Aeneid. It is worth remembering that Vergil was himself
a native of what had been Cisalpine Gaul, and
it might therefore be taken as evidence that areas
whose cultural background was Celtic had early on
proved fertile ground for Trojan origin legends. §4. Gaelic Scotland
The Scottish Gaelic tradition of legendary history
was closely related to the Irish tradition for most of
the Middle Ages. The Gaels in Scotland (Alba) were
portrayed as an offshoot from Ireland (Ériu) as early
as c. ad 731, when Beda in his Historia Ecclesiastica
(‘Ecclesiastical History’) 1.1 wrote that the Gaels,
led by their chieftain Reuda, took Dál Riata by
force and treaty from the Picts. According to this
tale, the name Dál Riata was taken from their leader
Reuda, and meant ‘Reuda’s portion/share’. Cairpre/
Eochaid Riata early in the Dál Riata genealogies
is likely to be this Reuda.
However, there was another version of the settlement
story, reflected in a 7th-century poem by Beccán mac
Luigdech and the genealogical tract Cethri Prímchenéla
Dáil Riata (The four chief kindreds of Dál Riata),
which could also date from the early 8th century. In
Beccán’s poem St Colum Cille is associated with
‘Erc’s region’, while the tract portrays the main Dál
Riata kindreds as descendants of Erc son of Eochu
Munremar. Senchus Fer n-Alban (The tradition
of the men of North Britain) depicts the same scheme,
with the additional (possibly 10th-century) statement
that Erc’s sons took Alba. Both the Annals of
Tigernach and the Dál Riata king-lists (see Scottish
king-lists) state that Fergus Mór mac Erca took
Dál Riata, but these could also be 10th-century or later
versions of the legend. In the Dál Riata genealogies
both Erc and Cairpre/Eochaid Riata are depicted as
descendants of the Irish, linking them into the Irish
genealogical scheme for all their peoples, ultimately
being derived from Scotta the Scythian and Goídel
Glas (see above; Auraicept na n-Éces; lebar
gabála Érenn). Yet another version of the settlement
legend is found uniquely in the 9th-century Welsh
Latin Historia Brittonum, which states that
‘Istoreth son of Istorinus held Dál Riata with his
people’; the source of this statement is uncertain.
The destruction of the Picts by Cinaed mac
Ailpín (r. 842/3–858) was an important element in the
foundation legend of the kingdom of Alba. This idea,
first found in the Chronicle of the Kings of
Alba, compiled 971×995, had become (by the time
of the 11th-century verse history of Scottish kings
known as the ‘Prophecy of Berchán’) a treacherous
slaughter of the Pictish nobility in a hall at Scone
(perhaps originally Forteviot) by Cinaed mac Ailpín.
The tale, which contradicts the contemporary evidence
that Cinaed and his successors up to 876×900 viewed
themselves as Pictish kings, was clearly designed to
explain the disappearance of Pictish language and identity. In later Scottish king-lists these actions were
presented as following the killing of Cinaed’s father,
Ailpín, in Galloway (Gall Ghàidhil), perhaps indicating
that Cinaed avenged his father by destroying the Picts.
Although the Picts were destroyed, their territories,
according to later histories, were viewed as having
continued in use, albeit with different names. The late
12th-century text De Situ Albanie (On the foundation
of Scotland/North Britain) describes the seven
divisions of Scotia, sub-dividing each into two regions.
While the concept of seven divisions was probably
derived from the seven sons of Cruithne in the Pictish
king-list (see also Cruithin), the extent to which
the regions in De Situ Albanie actually reflect Pictish
regions is uncertain; however, the text itself makes it
clear that these divisions were perceived as longstanding.
From the 10th century, the kings of Alba portrayed
themselves (perhaps correctly) as descendants of the
Cenél nGabráin kings of Dál Riata, rather than the
successors of Pictish kings. The royal genealogies and
the late 11th-century Duan Albanach (Scottish poets’
book) added the kings of Alba onto Cenél nGabráin
genealogies and king-lists, while in the 11th century a
genealogical descent from the other royal kindred of
Dál Riata, Cenél Loairn, to Lulach (king of Alba
and Moray/Moireibh 1057–8), cousin of Mac
Bethad (Macbeth), was created by combining two
separate Cenél Loairn genealogies. The main difference
in Duan Albanach is that the name ‘Alba’ was
supposedly named after its first settler, Albanus,
brother of Brutus—a view probably taken from
Historia Brittonum (see below), many manuscripts of
which have an Albanus as brother of Britto (= Brutus;
see Trojan legends). However, the Irish origins of
Scottish Gaels continued to be depicted throughout
the Middle Ages (for example in the Gaelic version
of Historia Brittonum, Lebor Bretnach, probably written
in the kingdom of Alba in the late 11th century),
but the Wars of Independence led to less of an
emphasis being placed on Ireland. To stress the
primary nature of the Scottish settlement, the Gaels
were presented as having come to Scotland more
directly, rather than via Ireland.
The ‘St Andrews’ Foundation Legend’ was another
reaction to English claims, this time by the archbishopric
of York to ecclesiastical supremacy in Alba.
The foundation legend, written 1093×1107, was St
Andrews’ reaction, a tale in which ‘Ungus’, a king of
the Picts, won a battle with the help of St Andrew.
Then, supposedly, Ungus donated St Andrews
(Cennrígmonaid) in gratitude, to house the relics of St
Andrew, which were brought from Constantinople to
St Andrews by St Regulus. In the tale, St Andrews is
then made head church of the Picts, and therefore
also of the subsequent Gaelic church in Alba.

§5. Wales

The indigenous origin legends of the Welsh have been
preserved only in allusions in Enweu Ynys Brydein (The
names of the island of Britain; Bromwich, TYP 228–
9) and some triads. Although Enweu Ynys Brydein
occurs first in the 14th-century manuscript Llyfr
Gwyn Rhydderch (Aberystwyth, NLW, Peniarth
MS 4–5), its core may have been written before the
12th century and there is no doubt that it contains
archaic material. According to this text, the names by
which the island of Britain was first known are [C]las
Merdin, ‘before it was taken and inhabited’, Y Vel Ynys,
‘after it was taken and inhabited’, and Ynys Brydein, when
it was conquered by Prydein son of Aedd Mawr.
Prydein, Modern Welsh Prydain, is the usual Welsh name
for Britain. This succession of three names appears
to represent two successive occupations of the originally
empty island, but nothing is said of the nature of
the settlements or the identity of each group of settlers.
Clas is ‘an enclosed space, people’ (and, most commonly,
a religious community); Merdin, in the Llyfr Coch Hergest version, Myrdin, is taken to be an older
spelling for Myrddin. Nothing in the stories and
poems associated with the seer Myrddin (who corresponds
to Merlin in English and Continental
Arthurian literature) suggests that he had a part in
an origin tale. His legendary associations place him in
the historical context of 6th-century north Britain,
while the personal name has been explained as a backformation
from Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen), where
the second element is the Celtic place-name Morid~non
‘sea fort’. It is, therefore, an open question who or what
this Merdin may have been. Y Vel Ynys, Modern Welsh y
fêl ynys, is a ‘proper’ compound of two nouns, ‘the honey
island’, the significance of which is not now apparent,
unless it refers to the fruitfulness of the land as in
some modern place-names, and cf. Exodus 3:8. The
transparency of the name, whether correct or not,
explains why, unlike Clas Merdin, it was preserved as a
traditional name for the island in the work of some
14th- and 15th-century poets, though they may not have
had any further information. Prydein son of Aedd as
the eponymous conqueror is the last in the list, but
there is no narrative of, or other reference to, his
conquest. He does, however, figure in the genealogy
of Gruffudd ap Cynan (†1137) of Gwynedd. Part
of his genealogy as given in Historia Gruffud vab Kenan
(13th century) is a combination of a traditional
pedigree and one taken from Historia Regum
Britanniae (‘History of the Kings of Britain’) of
Geoffrey of Monmouth. It appears that the former
is a ‘pre-Galfridian’ pedigree (i.e. compiled before
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia), preserved by the
Welsh learned class and retained by the author of
Historia Gruffud vab Kenan in spite of his acceptance
elsewhere in the genealogy of the authority of the
Historia Regum. Prydein’s appearance in a genealogy
suggests that the legendary history not only recorded
his conquest, which gave its name to the island, but
also the names (and perhaps the exploits) of his
descendants (or successors), as well as his predecessors.
Such an annotated genealogy or king list would thus
represent a basic ‘British Book of Conquests’
analogous to the Irish Lebar Gabála Érenn, as
suggested by P. C. Bartrum (BBCS 23.1–6).
Indigenous legendary history had a mythic character,
remnants of which remain in the Four Branches of the
Mabinogi and the triads, relating to, for example, the
families of Dôn, Ll½r, and Beli Mawr, and, in
particular, the usurping of the crown of the island of
Britain by Beli’s son Caswallon (Cassivellaunos)
during the absence of King Bendigeidfran (Brân) son
of Ll½r in Ireland (Ériu). But much of the narrative
of indigenous Welsh myth was lost as the European
Christian learned traditions became more dominant;
see above. In Wales (Cymru), the native origin legends
and their sequential character were displaced by
versions of the classical and biblical legends, which
carried more authority. The concept of a succession
of settlers was lost in favour of a single eponymous
hero, called Brutus or Britto (the singular of Brittones
‘Britons’). The 9th-century Welsh Latin compilation
Historia Brittonum (§7) simply refers to ‘Brutus,
a Roman consul’. But, further on, the text gives two
different explanations: from the ‘Annals of the Romans’
(§10) comes the story of Britto/Brutus, grandson of
Aeneas, who fled after the sack of Troy (see Trojan
legends); and, from ‘the old books of our elders’
(§17), an account of Britto, a descendant of Japheth,
Noah’s son. From Britto, his brothers, and cousins,
most of the European nations claimed descent. In §18,
the Trojan and biblical origins are combined. The theme
of invaders was not forgotten, however, but its application
changed. Where the native and ‘Brutus’ legends
sought to claim and to justify British hegemony, the
development of the traditional history of the Roman
and post-Roman periods made reference to the origins
of the nations of contemporary Britain: Irish, Picts,
Saxons, and Britons. The priority of the Britons within
Britain is stressed. They had come to the island in the
Third Age of the world, whereas the Irish had secured
Ireland only in the Fourth Age, and the Picts and
Saxons were even later arrivals (Historia Brittonum §§7,
15, 16). Nevertheless, British sovereignty could no longer
be claimed as absolute. This is the theme also of Triad
36, Teir gormes a doeth y’r Enys Hon, ac nyt aeth vrun
drachefyn (Three oppressions came to this island, and
not one of them ever went back). Gormes ‘oppression’
is used here for invading settlers: mythic Coraniaid or
historical Gwydyl Fychti (‘Irish-Picts’) and Saxons. But
the defining phrase is that none of these ever returned
whence they had come. The Coraniaid were destroyed,
as related in the tale of Lludd and Llefelys (see
Cyfranc Lludd a Llefelys). But the other two remain
in Britain as gormesoedd ‘oppressions’, as the Welsh prologue to Brut Dingestow (§§2–3) specifically
noted, using this key word gormes. The Romans were
not part of this scheme of successive gormesoedd
(oppressions): they returned home after their long
sojourn, and the ‘conquest’ described in ‘Maxen’s
Dream’ is an alliance of Britons and Romans, rather
than an invasion (see Macsen Wledig). The Romans
were an important element in Welsh traditional
history, but not as a gormes.
The field of reference of legendary history in
Historia Brittonum and Enweu Ynys Brydein, as well as in
the tales and the triads, was the island of Britain, rather
than the more compact and recent successor in Wales.
Ynys y Cedyrn, ‘the island of the mighty’, is the (mythic)
name used in the Four Branches of the Mabinogi.
Sometimes, Welsh legendary history views Britain
geographically—in its measurements, islands, and
rivers—but often conceptually as the British entity,
political and cultural. Essential to the concept of the
island of Britain is the unity of Britain and the
sovereignty of the British (in the sense of speakers
of Brythonic), who had formerly ruled ‘from sea to
sea’ and were now represented by their remnant, the
Welsh (Historia Brittonum §9). Political unity is
symbolized in the ‘crown of London’ and the ‘three
realms of Britain’: Wales, Cornwall (Kernow), and
the North (Hen Ogledd). Sovereignty is expressed
in the titles ‘Lord of Britain’ given, rhetorically, to
Urien of Rheged (6th century) and Cadwallon
of Gwynedd (7th century) and in the war song
Unbeiniaeth Prydein (Sovereignty of Britain), sung before
battle according to the Welsh laws (see law texts),
and single kingship is implicit in, e.g. the pre-
Galfridian genealogy/king-list of Prydein son of
Aedd. British unity, hegemony, and sovereignty were
themselves myth, but Britain’s post-Roman adventus
Saxonum (coming of the English) brought traditional
history and political reality together. Gildas is the
first to express the adventus Saxonum and its aftermath
in terms of the ‘loss of Britain’ and to introduce this
concept into Welsh historiography. The theme of the loss
of sovereignty and unity, with the logical corollary that
the English invasions are the turning point in Welsh
history, becomes dominant, but also gives rise to the
psychological reaction of hope of renewal and restoration
expressed through political vaticinations (prophecies).
Historia Brittonum (§§40–2) gives an account of the
red dragon ‘of our people’ (see Draig Goch), which
drives out the white dragon ‘of the people who have
seized many peoples and countries in Britain’. The
10th-century poem Armes Prydein Vawr (The great
prophecy of Britain) develops the theme of a
returning British messianic deliverer in a contemporary
political situation.
The concept of the ‘British’ island of Britain probably
owed much to the memory of the Roman province of
Britannia. Britain as part of the Empire was a powerful
historical theme, as is suggested by hints of stories in
the triads and elsewhere about the family of Beli Mawr,
Caswallon and the arrival—and initial repulsing—of
the Romans. The Roman theme was also developed in
the figure of the Emperor Maxen (Macsen Wledig)
in genealogies and ‘Maxen’s Dream’, reflected also in
Historia Regum Britanniae. Other stories relating to the
arrival of the English and the part of Vortigern
(Gwrtheyrn) in their reception have a similar
function in presenting invasion and conquest in a
moralizing light as the consequence of foolishness
or treachery. These are part of the wider traditional
history, as are the separate origin legends of many of
the Welsh kingdoms, e.g. Dyfed, Gwynedd,
Brycheiniog, Powys, which serve to define
territorial and tribal identity. In its broader outlines,
Welsh legendary history can be seen to have achieved
its functional pattern of national origins, unity,
sovereignty, loss (following the English settlements),
and vaticination of renewal—all in the context of
the island of Britain—by the 9th century in Historia
Brittonum. These were to be the themes which would
later inform Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum
Britanniae in the 12th century and account for its
particular significance for Welsh audiences. Political
prophecy would be an integral part of the Welsh
literary tradition until its apparent fulfilment in the
coming of the partly Welsh Tudur/Tudor dynasty
to the ‘crown of London’, but the central themes never lost their resonance in popular Welsh historiography.

§6. Brittany

Although the Breton saints’ lives seem to give a
coherent picture of the succession of rulers in the
4th to 7th centuries, a great deal of this is medieval
historical fiction. Brittany’s legendary history begins
with Conan Meriadec, said to have landed in
Brittany (Breizh) in 396, later extolled as the founder
of the house of Rohan. Following Conan, most of
these medieval legendary accounts of Breton origins
give the names of the rulers of early Domnonia
(Northern Brittany). An 11th-century legendary history
with the beginnings of an Arthurian orientation is
suggested by the Livre des faits d’Arthur and the
Life of St Uuohednou. From the 12th century,
medieval Breton historians generally adopted Geoffrey
of Monmouth’s scheme of succession of the rulers
of ancient Britain, in which Armorica played a
central rôle in numerous key episodes. Geoffrey’s
authority among Breton historians lasted until the 16th
century; thus, the history of Brittany tended up to this
time to be attached and adapted to Arthurian sources.
Geoffrey’s Historia Regum Britanniae (‘History
of the Kings of Britain’) swept aside or covered an
older layer of pre-Galfridian Arthurian traditions from
which only traces and fragments can now be recovered.
This scheme based on Geoffrey was continued by
the hagiographer Albert Le Grand in his La vie gestes,
mort, et miracles, des saincts de la Bretaigne armorique
(Nantes, 1637), and hence figured in devotional
literature until the 19th century, and even into the 20th
in peripheral works. The earliest ‘standard’ version of
this ‘Galfridian’ pseudo-history can be found in Chronicon
Briocense (ed. Le Duc & Sterckx). Although this
medieval view of Brittany’s past still aroused scholarly
debates and arguments in the 17th century, modern
historians no longer defend or analyse what is now
universally viewed as a largely fictionalized vision
of the past. More legends can be found adapted or
translated into Old French as the so-called Breton
lays, often connected with Arthurian characters and
settings in early medieval Brittany and Britain.

Well..., now that is a fulsome reply. I must thank you for it, and I look forward to reading it in some more detail...instead of just shamefully skimming through it as I just have.

However, there are reasons for my skimming, not the least of which is to more clearly define my position (and I feel that any misunderstanding is entirely my fault, through a poor choice of wording, little background or context, and a debilitating tendency to ramble way off my original point.

I must admit that when I read your previous responses they did seem a little..., curt. I have a policy in such circumstances to leave well alone and chill out for a bit. I'm well aware that the written word, especially on forums, can be easily misinterpreted in terms of tone - and also that, due to my own shortcomings, you may have misunderstood my position.

I have to say that the work you have referenced by Barry Cunliffe is one that I would readily recommend - it is widely referenced by other authors in this field, and rightly so. I would also recommend another book by him (the name of which escapes me - I'll get back to this) covering a wider, European overview of what we have come to know as the Celtic world. I will also add that I have read the preview for the upcoming Pritanoi faction in EB2, and (as always with the EB team) an impressive piece of work it is.

So, to explain my position in a little more detail. I am looking to make a provincial mod of EB based around Caesar's Gallic campaigns. It is with regard to this particular time period that I am discussing a 'kingdom' ( which, in itself, is a poor choice of wording...). At this point I must put right any idea that I feel Holinshed's Chronicles are, in and of themselves, of any great import in terms of garnering any semblence of a history of pre-Roman Britain, it was in terms of the pretty comprehensive list of sources that is contained within the Chronicles that I thought there might be some use to be made of. However the 'invasions' of Caesar are described, under the heading Cassibellane; he takes as one of his sources Caesar himself - from the original Latin, it seems; another source is, indeed, Monmouth (and, no, I don't regard his work as a serious history of Olde England... I think anybody would be mad to do so.), but he mentions a third source (though he doesn't specify it, unfortunately) which agrees with the nature of Caesar's defeat. As I said, the idea that Caesar faced a defeat on his first campaign makes sense, to me. His description of the events read like someone covering up a defeat, and the reaction of the Gauls (the Morini?) on his return from that campaign follows a familiar pattern of the Gauls being emboldened by the any defeat of the Romans...(I have a feeling I'm rambling again)

So, whe I say Kingdom, i don't mean to infer that there had been a loshing line of Kings with regal and constitutionally legal familial heritage, as the likes of Monmouth would like to believe in. I mean, more probably, a Kingship, and a very recent one at that; perhaps even with this Cassivellaunus as it's instigator. Kingships, from Caesar's own writings, were not unknown to the Celts/Gauls (Divitiacus of the Suessiones, for example); that there were laws and customs seemingly specifically designed to combat them (see Orgetorix) and that those rules seem specifically devised to oppose familial heritage (see the Aedui and their - alleged - restrictions on holding the highest office) and what you see is, imo, clearly intra-noble conflict.

That is why I suggest that Cassivellaunus held kingship over a number of tribes in Southern Britain at that time, and the news of Caesar's imminent 'invasion' was the opportunity for some of these nobles under his 'sovereignty' to overthrow his power over them. Apparently envoys were sent to him promising compliance with his demands before he had even set off. This could be down to fear, inflicted upon them by the tales from the Belgae and Gauls they must have heard this from, but the circumstance I have offered seems equally likely - especially as reference is made to Cassivellaunus' alarm at the lack of support from the tribes.... (I can't remember if this is directly from Caesar or Livy..)

That Mandubracius is then reported to have gone for Caesar's aid in restoring his position, his father having been killed by Cassivellaunus rather fits this version also. That sounds like all the world, to me, a powerful king enforcing his power over his dominion (and certainly not like a defeated tribal leader).

I must also point out that when I say that this Cassivellaunus was, in some way, the 'rightful' King, I don't mean that he was (in some Monmouth-ian spirit) truly a 'rightful' King, but rather that he had gathered enough support that he was viewed by those as rightfully (as in fit to be) King (perhaps in a the same way that, despite the objections by the empowered nobles within the Arverni, Vercingetorix garnered enough support to overthrow that conviction).

I had read that Cassivellaunus may have been a title relevant both to his position and to his tribal affiliations (as in, the Casse) and that Catu was a descriptive of being the 'followers of' of 'smiters of' Vellaunus - I shall have to search for the source of that information - perhaps it was just a convenient (and invented?) method for linking the Casse with this character.

WOW. What a great read.

There is nothing in GSG's last post that I could really disagree with, except that anything said about Cassivellaunus is pretty speculative: Cunobelinus is a much better candidate - but he is too late for your purposes, I gather. You could use his soi-disant father, Tasciovanus, or what about Diviciacus of the Suessiones? According to Caesar, a cross-cannel potentate of the generation immediately preceding that of his and Cassivellaunus'. If we take the late period of Aylesford-Swarling development as being indicative of Belgic movement ( in some fashion ) into Britain, his career certainly seems plausible.

The word 'king' is not one I'm fond of in this context, although it is of course exactly the word that Cunobelinus uses on his coins. However, we know so little about early British religion and society that it is very hard to say how they viewed their leaders: were kings divinely appointed? This is what the Greek world had come to mean by king, after Alexander. It's totally possible that the grey area between the names of gods and chiefs (Bran/Brennus, Belin/Cunobelinus, many others) indicates that the people saw their kings as at least semi-divine or sacred: but there is no proof of that I am inclined to think that it's not true. My hunch (no more than that) is that it was not until Christianity brought in eastern notions of divine kingship that the western Celts recast their stories in the light of their new faith, and thus Geoffrey and his unbroken line of British Kings back to Noah (Shem? somebody like that).

Anyway, good luck with your mod. I'm afraid I can't be much help, as I find it hard even to devote time to my EBII obligations.

https://img32.imageshack.us/img32/81...00702at145.png
https://img291.imageshack.us/img291/...00702at145.png
https://img32.imageshack.us/img32/79...0702at145t.png


P.S. The Cunliffe book you're thinking of is probably The Ancient Celts. It and his other works are available on questia.com for what I think is a very low monthly cost. Highly recommended. There's also a very good book by Sabatino Moscati on there.

I usually just lurk, but I just wanted to thank the heavy lifters for their discussion. It is enlightening.

Actually, the first 'High King of All Britain' was Athelstan (ca. 925). Coincidentally, the most recent In Our Time podcast is about him.

Britain was then as Gaul was then: A bunch of Kings without Kingdoms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Britain was then as Gaul was then: A bunch of Kings without Kingdoms.

---

Britain was then what Gaul was then, what Rome was then, what all polities were and have always been; factions within factions within factions.... One of Rome's great strengths was their political nouse. They knew how to work one faction against another, how to destabilise and fragment what could be strong enemies by the divisions within them.

I agree - but I also think that one of Rome's greatest and most unique strengths was its liberal attitude towards citizenship. It seems so obvious to us now, but if you can put yourself into the mindset of someone from the 3rd BCE, it is a revolutionary idea that someone can become a citizen of a state other than that of their birthplace: this almost never happened in the Golden Age of Greece, for example (even the son of Pericles by Aspasia was not an Athenian until the law was amended). For another, there's Carthage: before the Punic Wars, Carthage's ager publicus was much larger and richer than Rome's, not to mention the huge fleet of warships and merchant vessels. But no matter how hard the Libyo-Phoenicians, Numidians, or Iberians fought for Carthage, the franchise never expanded, and thus there were never as many people with a deep vested interest in the state as there were for Rome.

Absolutely, the 'state' - as defined by Rome - was an entirely new political structure, and the continual and evolutionary expansion of the benefits of Roman citizenship made all the difference in holding the whole together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

Britain was then what Gaul was then, what Rome was then, what all polities were and have always been; factions within factions within factions.... One of Rome's great strengths was their political nouse. They knew how to work one faction against another, how to destabilise and fragment what could be strong enemies by the divisions within them.

---

The fact still remains that Rome's greatest strength was being able to demolish their enemy to the pulp of extinction, while at the same time taking over their lands through such methods as colonization - a rather new innovation for that time period. They not only defeated their enemies, they conquered them.

No British tribe was ever able to conquer anything; it was Rome that first conquered there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

The fact still remains that Rome's greatest strength was being able to demolish their enemy to the pulp of extinction, while at the same time taking over their lands through such methods as colonization - a rather new innovation for that time period. They not only defeated their enemies, they conquered them.

No British tribe was ever able to conquer anything; it was Rome that first conquered there.

---

Hmmmm... Don't you think that there is a reason that Rome would quite like a disjointed, factional Gaul, rather than having to face a united Gaul? Aren't there reasons that Rome invested so much effort in allied states in Asia Minor? Rome didn't just possess some all defeating, invincible army of demi-gods..., they worked hard at ensuring that their enemies were ...... diluted. They could only "demolish their enemy to the pulp of extinction" because those enemies were weakened by political infighting, by divisions.

As to what was going on in Britain..... thank you for your surety, I am not so convinced. There were clearly major changes going on within Britain prior to Caesar's invasion (as attested by the archaeological evidence), and this involved new power structures, possibly introduced at the intervention of the Belgae tribes who were encroaching into Britain at this time. The Trinovantes were 'conquered' by the Catuvallauni, which is what lead to Mandubracius approaching Caesar for aid in re-establishing his rule....taken from them, physically, by the Cassivellaunus...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

Hmmmm... Don't you think that there is a reason that Rome would quite like a disjointed, factional Gaul, rather than having to face a united Gaul? Aren't there reasons that Rome invested so much effort in allied states in Asia Minor? Rome didn't just possess some all defeating, invincible army of demi-gods..., they worked hard at ensuring that their enemies were ...... diluted. They could only "demolish their enemy to the pulp of extinction" because those enemies were weakened by political infighting, by divisions.

As to what was going on in Britain..... thank you for your surety, I am not so convinced. There were clearly major changes going on within Britain prior to Caesar's invasion (as attested by the archaeological evidence), and this involved new power structures, possibly introduced at the intervention of the Belgae tribes who were encroaching into Britain at this time. The Trinovantes were 'conquered' by the Catuvallauni, which is what lead to Mandubracius approaching Caesar for aid in re-establishing his rule....taken from them, physically, by the Cassivellaunus...

---

I wouldn't equate the Gauls at Alesia under Vercingetorix anything close to a "diluted" representation of the Gauls, nor the Seleucids at Magnesia a "diluted" Seleucid Empire - they were much more "diluted" after their confrontation with Rome than before it. Why do you think they didn't attempt to colonize all of Seleucia?

They knew they could only conquer Asia Minor (at the time one would argue only Cicilia), so that is why they established Asia, and several independent "client" states. However, your theory that Rome's dominance was a product of pure political wit is disproven, as it is clear its decision to maintain Armenia existent served only to hinder it.

...Nor would I equate the famous "tribute" paid to the Catuvallauni as anything that says... "We Are Conquered."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

I wouldn't equate the Gauls at Alesia under Vercingetorix anything close to a "diluted" representation of the Gauls, nor the Seleucids at Magnesia a "diluted" Seleucid Empire - they were much more "diluted" after their confrontation with Rome than before it. Why do you think they didn't attempt to colonize all of Seleucia?

They knew they could only conquer Asia Minor (at the time one would argue only Cicilia), so that is why they established Asia, and several independent "client" states. However, your theory that Rome's dominance was a product of pure political wit is disproven, as it is clear its decision to maintain Armenia existent served only to hinder it.

...Nor would I equate the famous "tribute" paid to the Catuvallauni as anything that says... "We Are Conquered."

---

Of course the Gauls under Vercingetorix were diluted. They had been merrily smashing each other to pieces for the sixty or so years since the Arverni and Allobroges had been defeated. Vercingetorix had to overthrow the leaders of his own tribe to be acclaimed Vercingetorix; the first attcks ade by this "pan-Gallic" confederation was against other Gauls. The Aedui were still allies of the Romans until quite late in the insurrection, the Remi remained so throughout.

And, how did Caesar resolve to defeat the insurrection? He took tow (tribe) by town(tribe), working on breaking the cohesion of his enemy. The very fact that, even when all the tribes were combined, they relied upon guerilla tactics. Does that sound like a strong, powerful, cohesive enemy? It seems that some of the tribes were a little tardy in having their troops turn up - and these would eventually show up, in dribs and drabs, as 'relief' for Alesia. And Alesia was not some clear cut, steamrollering of the Gauls - as the entire campaign was not. Alesia was close to being a catastrophe for Caesar.

Why do you think the Romans bothered with the allied and client Kingdoms to the East? Just for a different way of organising the Empire? It was clearly to interfere with their greater enemies in the area - but equally they were playing the one off against the other; and they made a point of ensuring that they remained intact, independent entities.

Of course the Romans had a powerful military, but to understand their success as simply attributable to that seems wide of the mark. And, Im not sure where you've got the idea that I'm arguing that their dominance is "pure political wit". But the one without the other will gain you nought.

As for the dismissal of the power of the Catuvellauni..... errmmm, how much more "We are conquered" can you get than running to a Roman commander pleading for help in regaining your position, because you've been conquered. I'm not sure what, exactly, the son of the 'King' of the Trinovantes pleading for Caesar's help because Cassivellaunus has killed his father and taken his lands, might imply other than a 'conquering'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

As for the dismissal of the power of the Catuvellauni..... errmmm, how much more "We are conquered" can you get than running to a Roman commander pleading for help in regaining your position, because you've been conquered. I'm not sure what, exactly, the son of the 'King' of the Trinovantes pleading for Caesar's help because Cassivellaunus has killed his father and taken his lands, might imply other than a 'conquering'.

---

I have understood a kingdom to be one where a central monarchy exercises its direct authority not just over a portion of its people's, but all of them. Hence, the trick is in the very names they used themselves... When you hear the title of King of the "Trinovantes," it is a misnomer: He should actually be called "Chief." Theoretically, once a chief is fortunate enough to another tribe, he would then call himself Chief of "Picts," for example. Eventually, if he is successful enough to the point where there are no rival chiefs, then his status is automatically elevated by the fact that there is no dispute to his authority and, hence, he becomes King.

This is why, along with their political structure, the Aedui should never be considered a kingdom, because they lacked the type of authority over their own people that is typical of a kingdom, as there was always a #2 around, despite their dominance.

As for the "diluted" statement, it may be that my accentuation might have crossed the line of hyperbole, but my intention was to illustrate that Rome's main instrument in conquering others was not its diplomacy but rather its military, as you seemed to suggest:

Quote:

---

Rome didn't just possess some all defeating, invincible army of demi-gods..., they worked hard at ensuring that their enemies were ...... diluted. They could only "demolish their enemy to the pulp of extinction" because those enemies were weakened by political infighting, by divisions.

---

Carthage, I know for a fact to be a more formidable and more politically-stable opponent (factional politicking aside), and they're people ceased to exist.

As for Rome's status, to further explain, it too could only really have been considered a kingdom up until it dominated all the native oscan/italian lands (some would argue it would exclude the Po in this time period), although it still would've not been considered one as its political structure was an oligarchy as opposed to a monarchy.

I think the term king has to be viewed, in terms of the Celts and Gauls, in context. I don't think you can attribute such a specific definition as you have offered here to the term. As to whether one might be considered king "..where a central monarchy exercises its direct authority not just over a portion of its people's, but all of them."..., what constitutes "all"? The 'king' of the Suessiones referred to by Caesar was described as commanding a large part of Britain and much of Gaul (though, given the timeframe, I'm not sure how this would have tied in with the proto-'states' of the Aedui, Arverni, Pictones, Lemovices, Sequani and Helvetii. But, as I said, this might give some context to the use of the term 'king'. I don't, of course, mean that there was a King (in the way that we are meant to understand it now) over all of Britain; I was suggesting that there was a powerful chief with power over many tribes - another such 'king' of the period would be Ariovistus, for example.

Carthage, I know for a fact to be a more formidable and more politically-stable opponent (factional politicking aside), and they're people ceased to exist.

And Carthage was defeated on a purely military basis?

What of Sertorius in Hispania? Look at the bloody nose that Caesar got when he tried invading Britain - even after diluting the power of Cassivellaunus. Look how close he came to defeat by Ariovistus - saved only by the timely intervention of one of his legates; and again at Alesia. What about Crassus in Persia? What of the three legions that marched into Germany and never came back?

Roman military might was oly one tool in the Roman tool-box. A very good tool, but rarely used on its own. Can't defeat an irritating rebellious general? Get him assassinated. Don't want to face a half a continent of barbarians under one flag? Make alliances of various natures with them and play them off against each other....

Rome didn't become the predominant force in the West by simply shouting ug and killing lots of people; having a great army will get you so far; having the reputation of a great army, the political/diplomatic nouse to play your enemies as if they are allies.... that gets you a whole lot further.

Quote:

---

And Carthage was defeated on a purely military basis?

---

Yes, my friend, especially in the First Punic War, the action was always military. Hiero, you can argue, was a cheap, "diplomatic" steal, but he only switched sides after both he and the Carthaginians, under Hanno, were defeated. After that, it was a prolonged struggle of attrition over land and sea that pretty much was devoid of any foreign influence or interference.

Quote:

---

What of Sertorius in Hispania? Look at the bloody nose that Caesar got when he tried invading Britain - even after diluting the power of Cassivellaunus. Look how close he came to defeat by Ariovistus - saved only by the timely intervention of one of his legates; and again at Alesia. What about Crassus in Persia? What of the three legions that marched into Germany and never came back?

Roman military might was oly one tool in the Roman tool-box. A very good tool, but rarely used on its own. Can't defeat an irritating rebellious general? Get him assassinated. Don't want to face a half a continent of barbarians under one flag? Make alliances of various natures with them and play them off against each other....

Rome didn't become the predominant force in the West by simply shouting ug and killing lots of people; having a great army will get you so far; having the reputation of a great army, the political/diplomatic nouse to play your enemies as if they are allies.... that gets you a whole lot further.

---

How on earth is this not just a totally subjective opinion and a statement that takes the discussion out of context? How does the fact that such contests were difficult diminish, in any way, the accomplishments done by Rome compared with any barbarian tribe? Son, if it wasn't for Rome there probably would be no such thing as a modern Europe. France, Spain, and Italy, are all products of the social, political, and cultural structures that the Romans established. The barbarians were always just outside the manageable range that civilization allowed @ 0 AD.

I doubt if Romans knew how to fly planes or make bombs, they would've had any trouble defeating mighty barbarians... unfortunately for them, the times were still largely dependent on pure, raw manpower... unlike today...

But really, about the topic, Britain = Land of the Chiefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Yes, my friend, especially in the First Punic War, the action was always military. Hiero, you can argue, was a cheap, "diplomatic" steal, but he only switched sides after both he and the Carthaginians, under Hanno, were defeated. After that, it was a prolonged struggle of attrition over land and sea that pretty much was devoid of any foreign influence or interference.

---

Livy: "Laelius and Masinissa, who had followed up the defeated cavalry a considerable distance, now returned from the pursuit at the right moment and attacked the enemy in the rear. This at last decided the action."
As a result of the battle of Zama: "Hannibal... told the senate frankly that he had lost not a battle merely but the whole war, and that their only chance in safety lay in obtaining peace."

Soooooo... who's this Masinissa guy? Perhaps one of the preeminent examples of political success leading to battlefield success for the Romans? The political success coming first, of course. And let us not forget that some of Scipio's success in Spain during same war was due to wooing or threatening Iberian tribes to support Rome over Carthage. In the "purely military war" as if there were such a thing, Carthage lost Sicily, but threw the Romans back when they invaded Africa. In the war where the Romans thought about using politics and diplomacy, they destroyed Carthaginian resistance in Africa and completely dismantled Carthaginian hegemony. Zama was not an incredible tactical victory. The Romans did little different than they had in numerous previous battles - Scipio was a great general because he, like Hannibal, understood the essentially political role of generalship.

Military matters are simply a subset of politics, nothing more. And you're simply wrong about Carthage being more politically stable than Rome during the Punic Wars. It trusted its allies and subject peoples far less, to the point of reducing the permitted military defenses for many of them, to its later sorrow. Its internal factional politics interfered with its military efforts more often and in a more serious fashion than Rome's.

Also, it is quite bizarre that in your haste to insult Gracchus for not praising the legions for... however you wanted him to praise them, you completely change the subject by talking about Rome's role in shaping later history. Which was not the topic. You're attacking him for something he never said. Which is strange and rude at the same time.

Thankyou MisterFred, this; "Military matters are simply a subset of politics, nothing more." pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say. Hannibal defeated the Roman military pretty comprehensively at Trebia and Carrhae, and it is almost certain that the internal politics of Carthage was what put paid to Hannibal then marching onto Rome - instead Hannibal was restricted to what became a pointless and protracted campaign through Italy which ended up strengthening the ties between Rome and her Italian allies. It was the relative political unity of Rome, and the factional politik within Carthage that undid Hannibal - not the 'military might' of Rome.

When Viriathus waged war with those barbaric Lusotanians, how did the mighty Roman military overcome them? With the military superiority one should expect, given your account of Roman success? No, by bribing his emmissaries to Rome, who killed him in his sleep. And something very similar is likely to have occured with Quintus Sertorius.

How did the might of Rome deal with Jugurtha? By defeating him comprehensively on the battlefield? No, by having him betrayed and handed to them as a prisoner by King Bocchus.

To the suggestion that "Son, if it wasn't for Rome there probably would be no such thing as a modern Europe. France, Spain, and Italy, are all products of the social, political, and cultural structures that the Romans established."...; ignoring the condescending opening, are you suggesting that Europe would have sunk into the ocean had Rome not kept it afloat? What do you mean by such hyperbole? And then, in order to argue the predominant importance of the military of Rome you espouse the "social, political and cultural structures" that Rome "established"?! I'm not sure I understand how the implementation of social, political and cultural structures undermines, in any way, my argument that it was the political acumen of Rome that was, ultimately, their greatest strength... (I would also add that the diocese of France were based upon, as you say, the provinces/civitas of Roman Gaul which were based upon..... the tribal affiliations of pre-Roman Gaul - in other words, that the social, political and cultural structures that Rome "established"' were, in fact, the use of pre-exisitng structures.

You seem, if I understand you correctly(Slicknica), to believe the (Roman propogandist) idea that Europe would have been a cultural backwater were it not for them.. but there were clearly political/cultural progressions going on within these areas while outside of Roman influence. But, you are right in one respect, Rome has had a profound effect on modern Europe. Who were the allies within the Barbarion factions that Rome relied upon? Well, those souls who would feed the slave trade that Roman patricians relied upon more and more ( and by which they devalued the rights of lesser Roman citizens), in other words those who would sell their own people for a tidy profit in their own 'pocket', or for a few amphora of wine. That's a good starting point for all social, political and cultural structures, I'm sure. So, likely the feudal system that predominated in Europe through the medieval period is a result of Rome's intervention. Hooray for slavery and serfdom. Also the most intolerant political/religious hegemony in history can be laid at their doorstep. Hooray for religious persecution and patrician mysogeny.

Ahem...., so, back to the original point of this thread. I'll thank you again for your surety as to the political/social set-up of pre-Roman Britain, and I hope you can forgive my rudeness in preferring to take note that some serious historians, who have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to understand what can be understood from this period, really don't know. All I was asking - in a nutshell - was, is it worthwhile /historical to even have a strong political entity within Britain during the period of the late Republic. Thanks to oudysseos I think that any faction would have to be linked to a Belgic faction...

As a point of discussion; Alesia is, on the face of it, a simple military blunder by Vercingetorix. I see this military blunder as being precipitated by the political instability of the Gallic uprising that he lead. Vercingetorix, I would argue, based his decision to remain within Alesia on the basis of the political situation he faced.

In order to even begin the rebellion he had to face down factions of the nobility within his own tribe. When the Aedui joined the uprising they attempted to have the command of it transferred to them - away from Vercingetorix. We see his internal enemies raise their heads again following the siege of Avaricum. There he was accused of 'treason' for having left the army without a commander. He managed to overcome these accusations by rightly showing how the army were left in a position unfavourable to attack by their enemies (as Caesar attests).

So, here he is at Alesia. The best military decision that he could make would have been to have escaped with his cavalry in order to co-ordinate the relief of Alesia. That way Caesar would be turned from the besieger to the besieged - with little hope of relief himself. So, Vercingetorix made a simple tactical blunder? I think that he knew that leaving Alesia un-commanded would have been the end of him, so he was left to trust to the military co-ordination ofothers....not all of whom were (perhaps) quite as...... committed as he was to ridding Gaul of the Romans.

Had Vercingetorix had the political power to do so he would almost certainly have escaped Alesia. He could not because the Gauls were divided by internal politicking.

Quote:

---

Soooooo... who's this Masinissa guy? Perhaps one of the preeminent examples of political success leading to battlefield success for the Romans? The political success coming first, of course.

---

I think Massinissa fought in 2nd Punic War...