7 ancient Britons invasion of the Romans. Roman conquest of Britain

BRITAIN AND THE BRITNS

THE ROMAN AGE

Talking about Great Britain, we do not have to forget its history. Now I would like to tell you a few words about "prehistoric history". Hundreds of years passed after Brutus conquered Albion and changed its name to Britain, during which time many kings and queens reigned over the island. There were many good and wise rulers among these ancient British kings. But one day appeared a new invader. It was roman legions. The Roman Emperor Julius Caesar sent two expeditions in 55 and 54 BC to conquer the Island. Caesar's summer expeditions were a failure. Almost a century later in 43 AD, Emperor Claudius sent his legions to occupy Britain. The occupation was to last more than three centuries. The British were not conquered easily. There was a resistance in Wales and the Romans destroyed the Druids, a class of Celtic priests (or witchdoctors). The Romans were in Great Britain for over 350 years, they were both occupying an army and the rulers. They imposed Pax Romana, - Roman peace - which stopped tribal wars, and protected Britain from the attacks of outsiders - Piets in the North, Saxons from overseas. Celtic name, but many towns that Romans built along their roads - Lancaster, Winchester, etc. have the Latin component "castra" - a camp, a fortified town.

London was the center of Roman Rule in Britain, it was walled, the Thames was bridged; and straight paved roads connected London with garrison towns.

Under the Emperor Hadrian in 120 AD a great wall was built across Britain between the Tyne and the Solway to protect the Romans against the attacks of Scots and Piets.

Hadrian's Wall was a vast engineering project and is a monument of the Roman times.

The Romans also brought Christianity to Britain and the British Church became a strong institution.

The language absorbed many Latin words at that time. By the fifth century the Roman Empire began to disintegrate and the Roman legions in Britain had to return back to Rome to defend it from the attacks of the new waves of barbaric invaders. Britain was left to defend and rule itself.

QUESTIONS

1. When did Albion change its name to Britain?

2. When did the Roman Emperor Julius Caesar send two expeditions to conquer the British Isles?

3. When did Emperor Claudius send his legions to occupy Britain?

4. Did the Roman legions managed to occupy Britain?

5. How long did the occupation of the last island?

6. Who were the Celtic priests at that time?

7. How long were the Romans in Great Britain?

8. What settlement was the center of Roman Rule in Britain?

9. When was a great wall across Britain between the Tyne and the Solway to protect the Romans against the attacks of Scots and Piets built?

10. Who brought Christianity to Britain?

11. When did the Roman legions leave Britain?

VOCABULARY

to forget (past forgot, p.p. forgotten) - forget, forget

to conquer - conquer, conquer; enslave; subdue

Albion - Albion

to reign over - to rule something

wise - wise; educated

ruler - ruler

ancient - ancient, ancient, old; antique

invader - invader, occupier

failure - failure, miss

to occupy - to capture, conquer, take possession; occupy

to last - continue, last

the Druids - druids

Celtic - Celtic

priest - priest, priest

witchdoctor - medicine man, sorcerer

allegedly - allegedly; according to claim

to involve - draw in

sacrifice - sacrifice; sacrifice

revolt - rebellion, uprising, rebellion

chariot - ist. chariot

to spread (past spread , p .p . spread ) - spread), stretch

to preserve - protect, save

to impose - to impose

Pax Romana - the Roman world

tribal - tribal, tribal

fortified - fortified

straight - straight

to pave - pave, pave

garrison - garrison

Piets - Picts

vast - vast, huge; boundless

to disintegrate - disintegrate

barbaric - barbarian; initial

ROMAN PERIOD

Hundreds of years have passed since Brutus conquered Albion and renamed it Britannia. For a long time, many kings and queens have reigned in this land. There were many kind and wise rulers among them. But the time has come, and a new conqueror has appeared. These were the Roman legions. The Roman Emperor Julius Caesar sent two expeditions in 55 and 54 AD. BC e. to conquer the island. Caesar's summer expeditions ended in failure. Nearly a century later, the emperor Claudius sent his legions to conquer Britain. It lasted three centuries. The British conquest was not easy. They fought back in Wales, and the Romans destroyed the Druids, a class of Celtic priests (sorcerers-healers). The Druids were destroyed for allegedly using human sacrifices in their rituals. There was also a mutiny in East Anglia, where Queen Boudica and her daughters in chariots fought against the Roman soldiers and were defeated. Mostly England submitted to the occupation, while Wales, Scotland and Ireland remained invincible territories, thus preserving the Celtic culture and traditions. The Romans were in Great Britain for over 350 years, they were the occupying army and ruled in this territory. They introduced a "Roman peace" that stopped tribal wars and protected Britain from outside invasions - the Picts in the north, the Saxons from the sea. London is a Celtic name, but many of the cities that the Romans built along their roads - Lancaster, Winchester, etc. - have components of "castra" in the name - a camp, a fortified city.

London was the center of Roman rule in Britain, it was surrounded by a wall, bridges were built across the Thames, and direct roads connected London with the garrison cities.

During the reign of Emperor Hadrian, in 120 AD. e., a great wall was erected across Britain between the town of Tyne and Solvay to protect the Romans from the raids of the Scots and the Picts.

Hadrian's Wall is a huge architectural project and a monument of those Roman times.

The Romans brought Christianity to Britain, and the British Church became a powerful structure.

At that time, many Latin words entered the language. Until the fifth century, the Roman Empire began to decline, and the Roman legions that were in Britain were forced to return to Rome to protect it from the onslaught of new waves of barbarians. Britain was left to defend itself and rule on its own.

Britain has a very rich history. But I "d like to talk about Roman invasion of this country.

In 55 B.C. a Roman army of 10,000 men crossed the Channel and invaded Britain. The Celts who inhabited Britain saw their ships approaching and rushed to attack the invaders in the sea as they were landing. The Celts made a great impression on the Romans, who saw them for the first time in the battle. On the occasion of the battle hair and mustaches were painted red and their legs and arms were painted blue. With loud shouts they attacked the Romans in chariots and on foot. The well-armed invincible Romans under one of the greatest generals of that time had to return to France.

In the next year, 54 B.C., Caesar came to Britain again, this time with larger forces(25,000 men). The Celts fought bravely for their independence but they were not strong enough to drive the Romans off. The Romans who had better arms and armor and were much better trained defeated the Celts in several battles.

This is how the Roman invasion of Britain started. This invasion lasted till the year of 407 A. D. As a result of the conquest signs of Roman civilization spread over Britain. There had been no towns in Britain before the Romans conquered it. As soon as they had conquered Britain they began to build towns, splendid villas, public baths as in Rome itself. York, Gloucester, Lincoln and London became the chief Roman towns. The Romans were great roadmakers and now a network of roads connected all parts of the country. The forests were cleared, the swamps were drained, and the corn-fields took their place. Today there are many things in Britain to remind the people of the Romans. The wells which the Romans dug give water today, and the chief Roman roads are still among the highways of modern England. Many of such remains as glass, statues, coins may be seen in the British Museum.

From the history of Great Britain (Roman conquest)

The UK has a very rich history. But I would like to talk about the Roman invasion of this country.

In 55 BC A Roman army of 10,000 crossed the English Channel and invaded England. The Celts who inhabited England saw the approach of ships and rushed to attack the invaders when they landed on land. The Celts made a big impression on the Romans, who saw them for the first time in battle. On the occasion of the battle, their hair and mustaches were dyed red, and their arms and legs were dyed blue. With loud cries they attacked the Romans in chariots and on foot. The well-armed, invincible Romans, under the leadership of one of the greatest generals of the day, were forced to return to France.

In the next year 54 BC. Caesar came to Britain, this time with a larger force (25,000 men). The Celts fought bravely for their independence, but they were not strong enough to drive out the Romans. The Romans, who had more weapons and armor and were much better trained, defeated the Celts in several battles.

This is how the Roman invasion of Great Britain began. This continued until 407 AD. As a result of the conquest, signs of the spread of Roman civilization remained throughout Britain. There were no cities in Great Britain before the Romans. As soon as they conquered Great Britain, they began to build cities, magnificent villas, public baths just like in Rome itself. York, Gloucester, Lincoln and London became the main cities of the Roman Empire. The Romans were great road builders and soon a network of roads connected all parts of the country. Forests were cut down, swamps were drained, and fields of grain took their place. Today there are many things in England that remind people of the Romans. The wells dug by the Romans still provide water today, and the main Roman roads are still in use in modern England. A lot of glass, figurines, coins can be seen in the British Museum.

During the Roman period, the population of Britain was at its highest in the Middle Ages. For four centuries, Britain was part of a single political system that covered the territory from modern Turkey to Portugal and from the Red Sea to the Tyne River. Its connections with Rome were established even before the conquest begun by the emperor Claudius in 43 AD, and continued to exist for some time after the final collapse of Roman power. Thus, the period of British history we are considering takes about half a millennium.

What later became Britain began much earlier than the period of Roman rule. The characteristics of the society that the Romans encountered in Britain began to take shape during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages. By the time of the Roman conquest, the culture of the population of Britain totaled from one and a half to two thousand years of previous development - although researchers of the prehistoric period continue to argue passionately about various aspects of its periodization. By the end of the Iron Age, a form of organization had developed in the local society, in many ways reminiscent of that which the Romans encountered throughout the north-west of Europe; those varieties of culture and language that we inaccurately call "Celtic" were assimilated. Outside the imperial borders in Britain, they remained largely unchanged; within them, a Celtic substratum existed, assimilated and assimilated by Rome in ways that are generally not very consistent with those used in modern colonial empires.

Then why don't we start our History of Britain with the pre-Roman period, or place Roman Britain in the "prehistory" as some modern scholars do? The answer lies in the qualitative difference between the Roman period and the era preceding it. There is much truth in the claim that the study of Roman Britain belongs to the "prehistory" in the sense that in this case we rely mainly on archeological data - and the same can be said about the early Anglo-Saxon period. At the same time, our sources for Britain are by no means exclusively archaeological, and the analysis of material remains itself cannot be isolated from the study of written sources. Although the amount of written evidence contemporary or close to that period is not as great as in later centuries, it is sufficient to be considered significant. In addition, we have at our disposal a very large number of surviving written monuments, created by the daily life of a society with widespread literacy, which have not undergone the inevitable distortions inherent in the Greek and Latin literary texts that have come down to us, copied by hand over the centuries. Specific examples of writing, found in Britain mainly in the form of inscriptions on stones, but also in other forms, serve as one of the main primary sources for the history of the Romano-British period. They include maker's marks on manufactured goods, a small but growing number of personal letters and other documents written on a variety of suitable materials found during excavations, and even graffiti patterns. ordinary people. Nor can we ignore such a specialized and complex yet richly informative area as the study of the Roman monetary system, which played a very important role in the politics and economy of the Roman world. Currency was used by the government not only as a medium of exchange; the inscriptions and images on the coins served as a powerful means of mass propaganda, reminiscent of television advertising. It is generally accepted that the ability to read was more common in the cities than in the countryside of Roman Britain; in the army it was mandatory, and in a number of other activities it was necessary. It was not limited to a small or specialized group, as was typical for other eras.

The main difference between Roman Britain and the society that existed before it was that the population during the Roman era was literate, perhaps more literate than at any other time before the end of the Middle Ages. Along with and in connection with this, it should be noted that the world of Roman Britain was dominated by law, which to the smallest detail regulated the relationship between man and state, man and man, no matter how selfish or ineffective its actual application often was. There is a striking contrast between Roman Britain, a society in which prescriptions and procedures recorded in official documents played an increasingly important role, and the country that was here by the end of the Iron Age. Back then, even at the top of the social hierarchy, where the importation of Roman luxury goods played a prominent role, writing was completely absent, except for the inscriptions on magnificent but rare coins - and even these were almost always Latin, and the minters themselves were often Romans.

After the expeditions of Julius Caesar in 55 and 54. BC. indicated the direction of expansion, the desire of Rome to conquer the country became more or less inevitable. The Romans did not recognize any restrictions on the right to extend their power: they considered it as their divine mission. Since Caesar, Britain has held a special and significant place in the minds of the Romans. The Roman period is a turning point, not in the sense that the first human settlements appeared on British soil, but in the sense of the country's transition from prehistory to history.

The physical geography of a country has a great impact on the lives of its people, and Britain is no exception to this rule. The most conspicuous and enduring feature of its landscape is the general division between the highlands and the plains—approximately between the north and west of the island and its south and east—but this distinction may be exaggerated in the course of historical analysis. In addition, in Britain, man has shown an extraordinary ability to remake the surrounding landscape, sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally, in pursuit of certain goals, such as the provision of fuel. It should also be said that that period was marked by significant fluctuations natural conditions, in particular changes in the relative level of land and sea, which have had a serious impact on the contours of the coastline, and in the interior, on the water level in rivers. To what extent the causes that caused these fluctuations were due to climate or geological shifts is not completely clear. In general terms, the data we have regarding the Roman period suggest that the climate in that era was similar to that of modern Britain. The period when the sea level was relatively high was followed by the "retreat of the sea" in the 1st century BC. BC, which opened up new lands for cultivation. In the III century. AD flooding data in many parts of Europe, causing serious problems in the lowlands, on the banks of rivers and in harbors, indicate the onset of a wetter climate. Thus, it can be assumed that the climatic conditions during the period under consideration were not constant.

The assumption that the main part of Britain was covered with forests until the onset of the Anglo-Saxon period, which was widespread before, is now hardly shared by anyone. Although by the time of the Roman conquest there were still large areas of natural forest, the population of Britain had already risen to a level that had generally been maintained during the period of Roman rule and was two or three times higher than during the reign of William the Conqueror (1066-1087) . The ratio of forests and open, inhabited space then fell to the end of the Middle Ages. Starting around 1300 B.C. the Classical Iron Age began on the territory of Britain, fortifications characteristic of this period on the hills appeared, separate courtyards and groups of courtyards, which sometimes reached the size of rural settlements (often with small fences), the areas of constantly cultivated fields, forest plantations, as well as significant areas of pastures increased . During the 600 years preceding the age of Caesar, Britain acquired many of the features characteristic of subsequent periods of the Iron Age on the territory of continental Europe, although not without local features. This circumstance caused an ongoing dispute between researchers of the prehistoric period as to whether these successive changes testify to some significant foreign invasion, to the appearance of a relatively small number of foreigners who had influence or conquered (which the Normans later became) or the exchange of ideas through travel and trade. In any case, Britain by the time of Caesar had reached such a stage of development that the tribes that he encountered here in those regions into which he penetrated - in the south and in the east - were, in his own words, very similar to the tribes he met in Gaul. True, archeological evidence suggests that there were also less advanced peoples living in Britain, but they all seem to have spoken the same British variety of the Celtic language and had a broadly similar culture.

There are several reasons to believe that the tribal system that we find in Britain in the time of Claudius was not yet fully developed under Caesar; in addition, that period is marked by a number of other important changes, which we will consider later. In Southern Gaul, the local tribes have largely moved from the rule of kings to elected offices (magistracies) and tribal councils; however, in northern Gaul, at the time of Caesar's appearance there, the royal system of power was still common. In Britain, it survived until the time of Claudius, although there are indications that two kings ruled jointly or alternately. The society was divided into a military aristocracy and common people who were mainly engaged in agriculture. The priests, or druids, constituted a third social group whose position and functions are still the subject of debate, although, at least in relation to Britain, the available evidence does not support the popular belief that they played a significant political role. The Celts were credited with pugnacity, both within their own tribe and in the ease with which different tribes went to war with each other. Only in rare cases, in the face of great danger, did the Celtic tribes unite in order to elect a single leader. At least in Gaul, a certain tradition of periodic meetings of the nobility of various tribes was preserved. The Celts had very little or no "national" feeling.

By the time of Caesar, close links had been established between southern Britain and northern Gaul. Archeological data testify to two main ways of moving things and people between the two countries. The most important of these at that time ran from Brittany and Lower Normandy (in ancient times known collectively as Armorica) to South West Britain, especially through the port of Hengistbury Head in Dorset. Another route ran from Upper Normandy and the territory of the modern Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, the lands between the mouths of the Seine and the Rhine, to South and East Anglia. Caesar writes that "in living memory" the power of the Gallic ruler also extended to Britain. He faced not only troops from Britain fighting side by side with his Gallic opponents, but also refugees who interfered with him, who sought refuge from Rome with friends or relatives across the English Channel.

In order to understand why Caesar ended up in Gaul, and what might have prompted him to launch a campaign in Britain, it is necessary to briefly illuminate the position of Rome at that time. Roman expansion in the III-II centuries. BC, during which it turned from an Italian city-state into the greatest power of the Mediterranean, was carried out within the framework of the preserved traditional form of power. Theoretically, it was a democracy, with popular assemblies and annually elected magistrates, but in practice, public office was held century after century by representatives of a relatively small number of aristocratic families. The Senate, which was considered an advisory body, in fact began to play a dominant role. It consisted of magistrates and all those who had previously been elected to magisterial positions. The highest officials in the republic were the two annually elected consuls, who almost always came from an even more limited group within the senatorial class, and their families enjoyed special prestige. Religious and social views, closely intertwined, determined the very high value of honoring ancestors and preserving family honor. The reputation of a person, i.e. what his equals thought of him was of the greatest importance, it was one of the most characteristic features of the world of classical antiquity. The Roman aristocrat was constantly influenced by a sense of duty to his family and personal ambition, which prompted him to imitate his ancestors both in social activities, and in an effort to occupy the highest position.

Reputation was won by success in two areas - in legislative activity and in the army. A senator's career usually included posts in both activities. At the same time, the valor shown in military affairs helped to achieve greater authority. The occupation of a number of higher positions, even below the consulate, gave the right to command armies and govern provinces. Cicero, a contemporary of Caesar, an orator, politician and moralist, categorically defined the field of activity that gives the highest personal status: expanding the borders of an empire brings more glory than managing it.

AT ancient world wars of conquest usually brought considerable benefits to the winner. The enormous wealth acquired by Rome during the conquests, as well as the opportunities and temptations provided by her Mediterranean empire, caused an unbearable overstrain of political and social system, corresponding to the needs of just a small Italian state. By the middle of the 1st c. BC. The Roman Republic was in the process of disintegration. The old customs of the ruling class no longer suited the prevailing conditions. The desire to become one of the few chosen was replaced by an inability to tolerate even equals in power and glory.

One of the visible signs of the authority of a major Roman aristocrat over a long period of time was the number of people who depended on him. Entire communities could refer to his "clients". This "patronage" was one of the features of Roman society, which acquired great importance in the life of provinces like Britain, which were far from the centers of power. By the 1st century BC. the old armies, which were made up of citizens who were assembled to fight a particular war, were replaced by armies made up of professionals. The Senate made fatal error which made the remuneration for the service of the soldiers of these new armies, and in particular the provision for them of paramount importance after retirement, become the responsibility of the commanders, and not of the state. Thus, conditions were created for an ongoing civil war, and the Republic was actually doomed. During this period, patterns of thought, patterns of action and social relations developed that determined the fate of Rome until the end of its history. The significance of all this for Britain was expressed not only in the fateful events of the subsequent history of the empire, which directly influenced the history of Britain, but also in the extraordinary success that the Romans had in spreading their values ​​among the conquered peoples, especially among the local ruling classes. At the same time, the creation of a common culture of the upper classes, which was a necessary condition for the normal functioning of the empire, was in many ways one of the main reasons for its fall. The history of Britain in the Roman era exemplifies this fundamental rule.

The conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar must be seen in the context of the struggle for power in last years existence of the Roman Republic. We will probably never know exactly why he undertook two expeditions to Britain (in 55 and 54 BC), or whether he planned the conquest itself - although here, perhaps, a parallel can be drawn with his punitive campaign across the Rhine to Germany. The consequences of these expeditions for the future in this case play a more important role. If we consider their direct military results, then they were modest, although after them it was no longer heard of the inhabitants of Britain fighting in Gaul. Since the situation in the latter remained explosive, Caesar was not able to complete his victories and take advantage of the capitulation of the provisional confederation of British tribes. A Roman historian writing in the next century even quoted a British tribal leader as saying that his ancestors "rebuffed" Caesar.

Be that as it may, Caesar's bold venture against Britain had a lasting effect on Rome. Britain was a remote, almost dreamlike island beyond the "Ocean," a terrifying sea for the Romans, still unaccustomed to the ebb and flow of the tides outside the Mediterranean. Britain was beyond the boundaries of the known world. In two short campaigns, Caesar placed Britain on the Roman map. Having retained her enigmatic aura, she has since then always served as an object of temptation for those who sought to realize their military ambitions - Caesar set a goal and a precedent for subsequent members of the Julii family. In addition, his experience - he several times found himself in a very dangerous situation thanks not only to the British, but also to his soldiers - served as a practical lesson for future commanders of the expeditionary force.

Caesar also set important precedents for intervention in Britain. He accepted the surrender of some influential local kings and forged friendships with others. A tribute, or annual tax, was imposed on the island. In addition, Caesar approved a young prince as king of the Trinovantes in Essex, who then fled with him to Gaul. This prince's father was killed by Cassivellaun, a Briton who had been chosen by the confederacy of British tribes to lead their fight against Caesar, and who was now forbidden to interfere in the affairs of the Trinovantes. As a result, Rome was able to claim, in a certain sense, the status of supreme arbiter, as well as the right to collect tribute and protect her friends whenever she wished. (In fact, Rome seldom did this unless it was in her interests: the many small states under her nominal protection were able to appreciate this basic fact of the life of the ancient world sufficiently, with unfortunate consequences for themselves.) But precedents, like us remember, were very important to the Romans, and after Caesar they had many of them.

For two decades after Caesar, the attention of the Roman world was consumed by a series of civil wars that ended the Republic and brought to power Octavian, Caesar's adopted heir, who later took the name Augustus. Caesar himself took no action when his former Gallic friend Commus, whom he installed as king of the Atrebates in Gaul, joined in the great uprising in that province. After the defeat of the rebellion, Comm fled to Britain, where he had previously been an agent of Caesar, and founded a dynasty among the British atrebates. The lack of Roman interest in British affairs during this period is understandable. Meanwhile, we gradually begin to recognize the various tribes and trace the history of dynasties. Especially indicative in this respect is the case of the same Comm. His control over the Roman-created “client” kingdom of the Gallic atrebates and the Morins, who inhabited the English Channel north of the Seine, allowed him to control a significant part of the territory through which the paths from the main areas of residence passed. Ve1daye(Belgians), who lived along the banks of the Meuse, to Britain. There seems to have been a migration from the Belgian part of Gaul into Britain some time before Caesar, which probably intensified after Caesar's successes in conquest, leading at least to the establishment of kindred royal houses in Britain.

During the 1st century BC. Belgian culture became dominant in southern Britain, even among tribes that were not of Belgic origin. The way of life changed. The division of labor in society became more pronounced as all more species activities, in particular such as pottery, became the area of ​​specialization of artisans, and were not practiced at home. British art reached a marvelous height, especially in the work of metal, characterized by circular motifs and fine enamel, but it was chiefly for the equipment of military leaders and the decoration of sanctuaries. In most of the Belga-influenced areas, fortifications on the highlands began to give way to large settlements on the plains; sometimes the approaches to them were protected by solid earthen ramparts. They are regarded as the forerunners of the cities of the Roman period, although many of them were royal residences rather than cities typical of the Mediterranean of that time. However, from the point of view of the future face of Britain, the most interesting change is that in the period from Caesar to Claudius (54 BC - 43 AD), a more sustainable pattern of rural land management begins to emerge throughout its territory with permanent borders of land, allowing to conclude that there is a more or less permanent owner. Currently, more and more archaeologists are inclined to believe that during this period, perhaps, the practice of land delimitation was born, which has existed to this day. Of course, the people who cultivated the land and who owned it changed many times. The general features of the landscape that correspond to this very plausible hypothesis have survived to the present day.

A year before his first campaign, Caesar in a naval battle destroyed the fleet of the Breton Veneti, whose ships at that time controlled the sea trade routes between Armorica and Southwestern Britain. Archaeological studies indicate that the importance of routes between Belgic Gaul and southern and eastern Britain increased dramatically around this period. Since then, the sea routes from the Seine to the environs of Southampton, the short routes from Boulogne to Kent, and the route from the Rhine and the Low Countries to the mouths of the rivers in Essex have acquired the greatest importance. Perhaps there is nothing strange in the fact that these areas of Britain were at that time the center of wealth and knowledge. For from 12 B.C., when Augustus sent his troops to conquer Holland and Germany, the importance that Britain's relations with Rome's northern neighbors had recently acquired has likely increased even more.

Despite the fact that Augustus' attempt to expand the empire to the Elbe was ultimately unsuccessful, from this period on, the large numbers of Roman troops settled on the Rhine on a permanent basis. Britain sold grain, hides, cattle and iron to the empire - everything that Rome could not do without in its military campaign. Recent studies show that in Britain, with its technically efficient agriculture, at least grain was produced much more than was needed for the needs of the population. It can reasonably be assumed that the prospects opened up by the needs of the army on the Rhine and the new markets of the Roman provinces across the strait significantly influenced, and perhaps caused, prosperity, social change, and even a change in the nature of rural life. economy of Britain.

At the very beginning of the reign of Augustus, the glory of Caesar weighed; he was keenly aware of the need to establish his reputation as a general. Even before the final victory over Mark Antony, Augustus apparently planned a campaign against Britain and at least twice tried to undertake it. In both cases, more important tasks forced Augustus to delay. However, from 26 BC. he contented himself with supporting the popular and reputational opinion of Rome that the conquest of Britain was only a matter of time, while developing diplomatic relations, the prerequisite for which could be negotiations on a possible revision of the taxation scheme introduced by Caesar, which, as we know were already underway at that time. At the same time, the conquest of Britain was still considered a matter of time, and such an opinion favorably affected the reputation of Rome. Strabo, an author writing in the late reign of Augustus or under his successor Tiberius, states that the Britons paid high customs duties to Rome on imports and exports of goods. He seems to have shared a view that justified the decline in interest in conquest, stating that, despite the ease of the enterprise, Rome was in no hurry to conquer Britain, since it was much more profitable to levy taxes without conquering it. The Britons, Strabo authoritatively adds, did not pose a military threat.

Comm was succeeded on the British throne by his son, Tincomme, and about 15 BC. Rome's relations with this kingdom, so important to the empire, where the paths from the Seine to Southampton ended, in all likelihood, changed, becoming friendly. Perhaps the reason was the strengthening of the role of one of the tribes of the Britons, the Catuvellauns, most of whose representatives lived in Hertfordshire. It is not known whether this tribe appeared shortly before as a result of the merger of smaller clans or already had a noticeable influence in the time of Cassivellaun, but from then until the conquest of Britain by Claudius, the expansion of the Catuvellauns will be of decisive importance for British history. One way or another, at that time Rome preferred not to notice such processes. Even the expulsion of Tincomme and another British king, who subsequently sought protection from Augustus, was taken in Rome as a confirmation of Augustus's claim to virtual power over Britain, as propaganda for internal use. Indeed, the Catuvellaunians tried to show as little open hostility as possible. This balance was in the mutual interests of the ruling classes on both sides. The British aristocrats received goods from the empire, and from the list of goods supplied by the kingdom, which one of the Roman authors considered worthy of mention, it is clear that the Britons paid for luxury goods not only with what was necessary for the needs of the army: gold, silver, which appeared at the end of the list, slaves and hunting dogs were commodities in great demand both among the emperor himself and among wealthy Romans. After a crushing defeat in Germany in 9 BC. Augustus and his successor Tiberius elevated the principle of non-aggression outside the empire into an unshakable rule - which was the complete opposite of the line pursued by Augustus earlier. However, the benefit of this practice is that Cunobeline - Shakespeare's Cymbeline - at that time the king of the Catuvellauns, managed to avoid retribution from the empire, even when he seized the territory of the Trinovantes, Caesar's old "proteges", and made Colchester the center of his kingdom. Now it was he who controlled such a profitable route to the Rhine. In Britain, he could, at his own discretion, suppress the confirmation of the status of other British rulers; acting in various ways, including predatory, he increasingly resolutely strengthened the power and influence of the kingdom.

Relations based on mutual tolerance, which undoubtedly suited both Rome and the Catuvellaunians, were, however, not to the liking of the other clans of the Britons. They began to deteriorate when Tiberius was replaced by the unbalanced Gaius (Caligula). At a certain point in this period, Cunobelinus expelled one of his sons from the country, who eventually took refuge with the emperor, formally becoming his subject. Guy not only announced that Britain had surrendered, but also gave the order to advance. Subsequently, he canceled it, but it is especially important to note that this was done at the very last moment. "Staff work" had already been carried out, the entire complex process of deploying forces for the offensive, which was being prepared as a serious operation, and not ordinary maneuvers, had been carried out; the Romans were reminded of a matter long awaited completion. Everything was ready; all that was needed was a firmer hand.

After the murder of Gaius, Claudius, who was the uncle of the murdered, ascended the throne, bypassing all the formalities; earlier, the imperial family did not take him seriously, mistakenly considering him an imbecile. In fact, he had common sense, his originality bordered on eccentricity, he showed a downright professional interest in history and deeply respected the Roman tradition. Claudius witnessed a serious military mutiny soon after his accession to the throne, and he could not help but understand the importance of establishing his reputation among the troops and gaining respect in Rome. A man like Claudius simply could not miss the chance to acquire the military glory that Britain provided him, and not only to carry out an invasion, which Augustus and Gaius refused, but also to surpass Julius Caesar himself. Nothing could have been a better way to strengthen one's own and the family's reputation.

There was also a corresponding reason - one that could later be referred to and which gave a strategic justification for the attack. By that time, Cunobelin had already died, and his two warlike sons, Karatak and Togodumn, took over the reign. Thus, the route to Britain from the east was unreliable. In the south, because of the constant turmoil of the original kingdom of Tincomm, there was only a miserable patch on the coast; this road was also closed after Tincomme's brother, Verica, was expelled as a result of an internal coup. The latter, following the trends of the times, also found refuge with the emperor. All of Britain seemed to be becoming hostile to Rome, and her vital trade with the empire was threatened. Like Caesar, Claudius could respond to a request for help from one of the British rulers.

Caesar relied on his talent as a natural commander and the devotion of soldiers who had served under him for many years. The success of the new standing army created by Augustus and his successors, although dependent on the commander, was for the most part ensured by careful planning and preparation, as well as the stability of the main components of this army. At that time, the legions, which were the backbone of the army, were still formed exclusively from Roman citizens; most of the soldiers were residents of Italy. Gradually, however, colonies of citizens founded in the older provinces outside of Italy were also obliged to supply men for the war effort. Each legion numbered just over 5,000 soldiers, mostly heavy infantry reinforced with small groups of cavalry, catapults and other war machines. The legion consisted of experienced artisans of various specialties and administrative workers. In addition, each legionnaire, who was required to be able to read and write, could be used to solve a number of tasks facing the government. In the first half of the 1st c. AD "auxiliary" units from local irregulars led by their own leaders gradually became irregular formations of the inhabitants of the provinces, mostly not Roman citizens, but with Roman commanders. These formations usually consisted of 500 men, infantry, cavalry, or both, and their status and pay were lower than those of the legions. At the same time, both legionnaires and members of auxiliary formations were guaranteed an extremely rare regular cash payment in the ancient world, the possibility of a career and receiving a land allotment after retirement. Education, experience and opportunities for self-promotion, not to mention self-enrichment, made the army one of the main factors of social mobility. Both active and retired soldiers were influential figures in their communities. Members of the auxiliary formations after the resignation automatically received Roman citizenship, and their sons had the opportunity to become legionnaires. Thus, these formations ensured the continuous process of turning illiterate barbarians into literate Roman citizens and served as an important element in the system of assimilation of new peoples within the empire.

The military force assembled to be sent to Britain in 43 AD consisted of four legions and about the same number of auxiliaries; in general, about 40 thousand people. In the face of a disciplined war machine, the British forces retained their former features. Professional warriors were the aristocratic stratum. Their favored weapon was the war chariot, which they used to get in and out of the battlefield quickly; in driving chariots, their charioteers showed extraordinary skill. It is not known for certain what position the cavalry soldiers occupied: they were probably people capable of maintaining their own horse, but it is not clear whether military affairs were the main occupation of their lives. The main part of the armies of the Britons was a militia recruited from the peasants. Unlike the Romans, the Britons wore little or no armor, relying on speed, swiftness and long slashing swords. Before they could approach the Romans in battle formation, they were losing many men under the clouds of Roman javelins; in hand-to-hand combat, their long blades were at a disadvantage against the close ranks and short thrusting swords of the enemy infantry. The mentioned successes of the Celtic troops against the Romans were usually achieved by surprise attacks, ambushes and suppression of the attacked enemy by simple numerical superiority. They were rarely able to face the Romans on equal footing in pre-arranged battles, and Roman commanders tended to push them out into the open or lock them up in their own fortifications, where they could be destroyed with siege weapons or forced into surrender by siege. However, perhaps the most important disadvantage of the British forces compared to the Romans was that the peasant militias could only participate in battles for a limited time. If they were not allowed to go home, the population began to starve. On the contrary, the supply system of the Roman army allowed it to conduct military campaigns as long as the weather allowed, and also provided the opportunity to build fortified and well-supplied camps in which troops could wait out the winter. Such a system made it possible to wage war year after year, and in addition, it provided all the necessary garrisons required for the permanent occupation of the occupied lands. It is surprising that in the face of such an adversary the Britons resisted so long and stubbornly.

The invasion faced fierce resistance from some of the British tribes. Others, no doubt not overly saddened by the fall of the Catuvellaunian hegemony in southern Britain, easily surrendered or joined the Romans. The campaign was crowned by the surrender of eleven British kings and the Emperor's triumphant entry into Colchester, for which he joined the advance units of his army, manned by war elephants. The outward expression of his delight was the revival of an ancient rite once performed by the conquerors in the Roman Republic, and the proud proclamation of the expansion of the empire, in which the "conquest of the Ocean" figured again (this was not empty boast: at first the army refused to sail).

By 47 AD Claudius's troops occupied British lands as far as the Severn and Trent. The transformation of Britain into a real province began. The position of the ruler had a high status. This post was reserved for former consuls; the duties of the ruler included the command of a very significant number of legions. In the first century and a half of the existence of the British province, in the appointment of its ruler, preference was usually given to especially distinguished men. It was not only military service that allowed itself to make a name for itself: although we will never get figures that would make it possible to compare income received with the costs of defense and government of Britain, this province was considered the focus of natural wealth until the fourth century. Indeed, by 47, the exploitation of British mineral deposits had already begun, which was one of the main goals of the victorious campaign (from that time on, the silver mines in Mendips were developed under state control). Rome would have avoided great hardship and loss if it had limited its conquest to territory already under its control, although the Romans would not have been able to curb their ambitions for long, even if the warlike and restless tribes of the North and Wales had not threatened the peaceful development of the South. However, the events of the next two or three years forced the Romans to take a different path.

In accordance with the usual Roman practice, most of the administrative duties in the provinces were shifted as soon as possible to the shoulders of dedicated people from the local inhabitants. It seems that Claudius' intention was to attract "client kings" as widely as possible - the most profitable way in those places where they could be relied upon. A significant part of the South, including the former kingdom of Veriki, ended up in the hands of a certain Cogidubnus, who may not have been British by birth. The Iceni from Norfolk received the status of "allies", and on the border of the Roman territories with the possessions of Cartimandui, Queen of the Brigantes (an association of numerous clans that occupied most of Northern England), mutual understanding was reached on the issue of defending the province from attacks from the North. One example of the success of such a policy was the extradition of the fugitive Caratacus to Claudius by Cartimandua; to others, Cogidubn's unbreakable loyalty, which proved vital in the later upheavals that took place in Britain.

It was expected that the administration of the remainder of the province would be taken over mainly by tribes reorganized into Roman communities ( quotes), from the nobility of which councils and local governments were formed - in fact, a home-grown version of the Roman structure, but often with the involvement of already existing public institutions. In addition to this, the powers of the chief financial secretary of Britain, called procurator provinciae. Provincial procurators reported directly to the emperor. This was quite natural, since they were especially responsible for the lands of the Crown (the emperor automatically appropriated the possessions of the defeated kings, and in addition, received a lot of lands by will or as a result of confiscations) and for state monopolies; but they also oversaw the activities of the rulers, the imperial troops, and the judiciary. Disagreements were not unusual and did not always arise without intent.

The process, which conclusively proved that the province would not survive even within the South, began in 47 AD, when the Romans responded to incursions from outside. The measures taken included not only retaliatory sorties, but also the disarmament of the British population of the province. Sooner or later, this was bound to happen, since the civilian population of the empire was forbidden to carry weapons, except in strictly limited cases (an eloquent evidence of the security Everyday life in Roman times), but those who voluntarily submitted to Rome did not expect that this measure would be applied to them. The Iceni rebelled and were brutally suppressed: the true position of the dependent kingdoms became obvious. The next step was the withdrawal of the legion stationed at Colchester and its replacement in 49 by a settlement of Roman veterans. The city was supposed to be the center of the imperial cult - the official worship of Rome and the imperial family, reflecting the loyalty of the province - and the veterans were called upon to serve as a defense against a possible rebellion. However, in reality, Colchester became an ordinary city, deprived of a military garrison. Apparently, London was founded at the same time as a port. Perhaps from the very beginning it was implied that he was to become the administrative center of Britain. In all likelihood, it arose as a result of deliberate actions, and not as a random settlement of merchants (as was previously believed). Now the leading role of the coast of Essex passed to the Thames, the formation of a system of divergent roads with a center in London, developed in the interests of management, but very soon made this city and the business center of the province, was laid.

AD 50s were a decade of rapid urban development. Only the countryside did not undergo any special changes, at least at first glance, and the process of general addiction to money circulation developed slowly. Nevertheless, by AD 60, under Suetonius Paulinus, who nearly succeeded in subduing the restive tribes of North Wales, the province seemed to be well on the way to progress. What went wrong? Why did the inhabitants of the province, led by the old friends of Rome - the Iceni and the Trinovantes - turn into a ferocious horde, seeking to destroy all traces of the presence of the Romans?

We have only Roman evidence at our disposal, but this is enough to reveal abuses of power - from simple negligence to outright crimes. Tacitus describes the character of the British in general terms as follows: “They do not shy away from recruiting into the army, they are just as efficient in paying taxes and in carrying out other duties imposed by the Roman state, but only so far they do not commit injustice; they cannot endure them, already subdued enough to obey, but still not enough to be imbued with slavish obedience. The blame for the events of 61 cannot be placed solely on the procurator, who is traditionally assigned the role of a villain in this tragedy. The ruler bears his share of responsibility, but we cannot stop there. It is hardly possible to directly blame the young Nero, who had just ascended the throne, since he was influenced by his "good" advisers - the praetorian prefect Burr and Seneca, a philosopher and playwright. It seems very likely that of the two, Seneca was at least aware of what was going on in Britain, as he unexpectedly, in his usual tough manner, demanded the return of large sums that he lent to the leaders of the British at high interest. The reports coming out of Britain might have been about unrest that made such investments risky. Further actions only fanned the flames. There were two sources of discontent, seen in the Iceni and Trinovants, respectively. In the event of his death, one of the "clients", the king of the Iceni Prasutag, husband of Boudicca, signed off half of his possessions to the emperor, expecting that this would ensure the safety of his kingdom and family. However, the officials of the procurator and the ruler regarded this as an unconditional surrender of the enemy. The king's property was confiscated, the nobility expelled from their estates, and taxes increased. The Trinovants suffered a different kind of injustice. Their nobility bore the brunt of maintaining an imperial cult designed to promote loyalty to the emperor, while the Roman colonists, who were unequivocally supported by the military, seized the lands of the nobility and treated them with contempt. She (probably, like the aristocracy of other civitates) was in the face of ruin, and when the grants made by Claudius were withdrawn, and Seneca demanded back his loans, this was the last blow for her. Ironically, the imperial cult, whose center was in the temple of the divine Claudius in Colchester, became the main object of hatred of the British.

In response to Boudicca's protests, she was flogged and her daughters abused. Raising your tribe and trinovant neighbors, dragging the inhabitants of others with you civitates(but definitely not Cogidubna), she swept across southern Britain, setting fire to Colchester, London and Verulamius (near St. Albans), torturing all the Romans and their sympathizers whom she could capture, and utterly defeating the few Roman troops left in this parts of the country. The ruler barely avoided the complete collapse of the province. After a decisive victory in battle, his retribution was even more severe. For a time it seemed that now the British province, paradoxically, would be destroyed by the hands of the Romans. Indeed, Nero (presumably earlier, but possibly at that moment) was leaning towards the final withdrawal of the Romans from Britain. In the end, the province was saved by two factors: the intervention of the new procurator of the province, Classician, an outstanding person of Gallic origin, and the recall of the ruler to Rome.

In the ten years following the Boudicca rebellion, Britain was recovering, a process truly important, but lacking in outward brilliance. There is some evidence that under the last ruler, appointed by Nero, it began to accelerate. However, in 69 (“the year of the four emperors”), civil war broke out throughout the Empire, which resurrected the ghost of generals fighting for their dominance. Nevertheless, the positive outcome of the war was the emergence of a strong new power in the person of the emperors from the Flavian dynasty. For Britain, this meant the revival of the province and the strengthening of the influence of Rome. As Tacitus said, "brilliant commanders, excellent troops, dimmed hopes of enemies."

While the Roman world was torn apart by civil war, another strife among the Brigantes cost Cartimandua her kingdom and led to the intervention of the Roman troops. The north of Britain was no longer safe. The former policy of maintaining dependent kingdoms, already called into question by the rebellion of Boudicca and the previous uprisings of the Brigantes, finally outlived its usefulness. In less than a few years, even Cogidubnus was apparently retired to Fishburne, to his luxurious villa. By 83 or 84, successive first-class rulers had pushed the Roman forces far into the north of Scotland and garrisoned the approaches to the Highlands; Romanization was in full swing. Describing the activities of his father-in-law Agricola, Tacitus uses expressions that characterize the Flavian era as a whole.

“Expecting with the help of entertainment to accustom to a calm and peaceful existence people living in solitude and savagery and for this reason readily taking up arms, he privately and at the same time providing support from public funds, extolling the zealous with praises and condemning the baggy, persistently encouraged British to the construction of temples, public squares and buildings ( fora) and private houses ( domus). Competition in the pursuit of excellence has replaced coercion. Moreover, he began to teach young men from noble families the liberal sciences, and he valued the natural talent of the British more than the zeal of the Gauls, and those to whom the Latin language had recently inspired frank hostility ardently took up the study of Latin eloquence. This was followed by a desire to dress in our fashion. and many put on the toga. So little by little, our vices seduced the British, and they became addicted to meeting rooms ( porticus), baths and exquisite feasts. And what was a step towards further enslavement was called by them, inexperienced and ingenuous, education and enlightenment.

In a sense, this urbanization did not achieve its full success under the Flavii. The foundations for a more stable urban development were laid in 122 by Emperor Hadrian's personal visit to Britain; then the implementation of previous projects was resumed and new large-scale work began. However, in general, the period between 70 and 160 years. - this is the century when Britain really became Roman, and in it there appeared stable signs characteristic of part of the Empire. Incorporation into the Roman state system was accompanied by a more or less widespread handover of day-to-day affairs to the local aristocracy, which succeeded client kings. The most important goal of such a policy was to win the favor of the nobility, whose confidence was catastrophically undermined in the reign of Nero, and it is in this context that Tacitus should be read.

Archaeological data allow us to see the full-scale development of large and small cities of Roman Britain at the end of the 1st - beginning and middle of the 2nd century BC. Community administrative centers ( civitates) coincided with civil ones: the forum and the basilica provided a place for the market, court, city services and council; public baths served as the focus of social life and recreation in the Roman world; waterworks; monuments in honor of particularly distinguished persons of imperial and local significance, as well as in many cases theaters and amphitheatres. Of particular importance to this archaeological evidence is the fact that in the empire such amenities were usually paid for by influential local residents (as members of local councils or individually), and not by the state or the emperor. A strong unofficial patron with connections in the district could help the city with donations or act in its interests at Court. And only in rare cases promising a wide response did the emperor take part in the improvement - personally or through his representatives.

The growth of cities could not, of course, be ensured only by a few local nobility who had adopted the Roman way of life. The fact that the revitalization of cities was accompanied by the appearance in the countryside of many villas - still mostly modest but comfortable houses of the Roman type, often replacing native estates - indicates that the nobility retained a connection with the land. Most likely, she spent most of her time on her estates, and next to them, many ordinary farmers prospered. In addition, during this period, retired veterans were settled mainly in a few cities founded specifically for their accommodation: Colchester, Lincoln and Gloucester. The flourishing of towns as a whole is equally due, according to well-attested sources, to the formation of a stratum of townspeople, which consisted of officials, persons of various professions, merchants and artisans.

Some of these people, especially among the artisans and merchants, were immigrants or guests from other parts of the Empire, and many officials served only a short time in the province. Nevertheless, the population of Roman Britain remained predominantly Celtic. The ranks of the Roman army were increasingly replenished from among the inhabitants of the provinces in which the units were quartered; and so gradually the Britons, deprived, like most of their brethren, of the advantages of Roman citizenship, began to join the army and were then entitled, as befitted retired veterans, to receive citizenship and considerable privileges, thus becoming a conspicuous part of the core of the emerging Romanized society. In cities, masters engaged their slaves in business ventures, and the common Roman custom of setting slaves free or allowing them to buy themselves out of slavery served to increase the number of skilled workers and replenish the ranks of entrepreneurs. Whatever the situation of rural workers, the educated and skilled part of society was distinguished by social mobility. While most of the ordinary population of Britain remained on the ground - and we must remember that handicraft production was mainly concentrated in the countryside - the cities of the Early Empire became centers of social life, exchange and service for the agricultural district, providing ample opportunities to move up the social ladder.

The renewal of the undertakings that had been extinguished by the Flavians under Hadrian was thus of great importance. But Hadrian's influence on the fate of the Province was also great in another sense. An energetic man with a strong character, he spent most of his reign traveling around the provinces. One of the few emperors, he consciously opposed the tradition of expanding the Empire. He was not popular with the Roman aristocracy, and many of his enterprises were only partly carried out, whether through the fault of the opposition or due to errors in calculation is not always clear. There have been at least three such examples in Britain. Hadrian's Wall was erected along the line beyond which, over the course of thirty years (after the advance to the North had reached its extreme point), the Roman army was withdrawn in stages, partly because troops were needed everywhere, partly because of serious local failures. Such a policy was in keeping with Hadrian's tendency to limit the empire, and the construction of the Wall was a brilliant and original idea. Nevertheless, a careful study of the early period of its construction reveals a number of remarkable changes in the plans under Hadrian, and the cost and time required for its completion were many times higher than the original calculations. Likewise, the agricultural development of the Fenland swamps in East Anglia entailed extensive land reclamation, and yet many farms fell into disrepair only a few years later. London under Hadrian also saw the demolition of the robust forum and basilica built under the Flavii, which were replaced by a complex of buildings twice as large. Hadrian helped the cities in the construction of public buildings in Gaul and other parts. In London, these works were probably connected with his personal stay there during a trip to Britain in 122; around the same time, they were accompanied by the construction of capital city fortifications - an event that has practically no parallel in other cities of the Empire outside of Rome. But, when a powerful fire swept through London in the later period of Hadrian's reign, no serious attempts were made to rebuild the areas destroyed by fire, and in the last years of the 2nd century. London shows signs of impending decline.

The frontier line, constructed by Hadrian from the River Tyne to the Solway Firth, outlines the extent of the Province during most of its history. Nevertheless, after Hadrian, three more aggressive campaigns to the North were carried out one after another, two of which were led by the emperors themselves, and the Roman garrisons stood outside the Wall of Hadrian for a long time; this area was under certain control. Moreover, a month before the death of Hadrian in 138, a plan was prepared for a new invasion of Scotland, and by 142, the troops of his successor Antoninus Pius, a man generally not warlike, had made, like the army of Claudius, a number of important conquests in Britain. Scotland fell into the hands of the Romans as far as the Firth of Tay; the creation of a new, less extended and more modestly built line of frontier fortifications from the Fort to the River Clyde began. The skilfully carved stone bas-reliefs erected along the fortification that we know as the Antonine Wall testify to the atmosphere of confidence inherent in the period that was to be the last in the unhindered advance of Roman power.

In the early period of the Antonine dynasty, the development of cities and countryside reached its first peak. It is generally accepted that the Empire as a whole experienced a golden age, enjoying peace and prosperity. Britain fully mastered the economic system of the Early Empire, based on money circulation and developed, full-scale trade between distant lands. The cultural sphere was dominated by Roman customs, and classical art and decorative craftsmanship were adopted everywhere. Probably, historically, the most significant cultural impact on the British during the Roman conquest was the introduction of new forms of visual art, especially sculpture, fresco painting and mosaics; however, Roman traditions also affected many more modest branches of art and craft - in jewelry and pottery, the production of all kinds of household utensils. Few of the best works of art in Roman Britain are comparable to the art of, say, Southern Gaul, but there are some. Nevertheless, there are quite a lot of mid-level examples, and it is quite clear that mass-produced products were widespread. First of all, it is they, and not a few surviving works of art, that shed light on the revolution in everyday life that took place compared to pre-Roman times, with iron age. Roman pottery alone points to the existence of a "squandering society" fundamentally different from what came before or came to replace it.

However, the most eloquent evidence of the assimilation of the Romans and the natives is religion, since it affects the deepest layers of consciousness. Religiously, Roman Britain was a real kaleidoscope: from the rituals officially performed in the Roman state - the worship of Jupiter, Juno and especially Minerva - the recently introduced cult of emperors and many beliefs imported from other parts, to local Celtic cults. People who arrived from across the sea often retained their favorite customs: the Greek priestess Diodora, in her own language, dedicated an altar at Corbidge to the demigod Hercules of Tyre; warriors from the Netherlands erected altars in Haussteads near Hadrian's Wall in honor of Alasiaga, Baudihilla, Friagabis, Bede and Fimmilena - the goddesses of their homeland. But for us, the unification, the fusion of Roman and Celtic deities is of particular importance. It was a difficult and unreliable path, since the Celts' ideas about their deities were much less certain than that of the Romans, but the process was universal. That the perception of Roman influence was not merely superficial is evident from, say, large complex in Bath, which included a temple and baths - its altar was erected in honor of Minerva Sulis (the local spirit of the hot spring merged with the Roman goddess of wisdom) haruspex Lucius Marcia Memor. The duties of the haruspex included predicting the future from the entrails of sacrificial animals. This ancient and deeply revered custom goes back to the earliest traces of Etruscan influence on Roman religion, but here it refers to a half-Celtic deity. On Hayling Island, the main tomb of the pre-Roman Iron Age - most likely directly related to the reign of Verica - was gradually rebuilt using Roman materials, and the architect Cogidubnus may have been commissioned from Roman Gaul. This is a particularly striking example of the many magnificent tombs (known to archaeologists as "Romano-Celtic temples") that have been discovered throughout Britain, Gaul and Roman Germany, and an excellent example of how, using Roman architectural techniques, earlier ideas inherent in the Celts. They are recognizable at a glance: they usually form a square, circle or polygon in plan, resemble a box surrounded by several rows of galleries, and are often located within a closed enclosure that may have sometimes served as protection for sacred ground since pre-Roman times.

On a much less formal level, we find in Wyrdale an officer of the cavalry who thanks Sylvanus (the Celtic village god in Roman disguise) for "a magnificent boar such as no one has ever managed to get", or two ladies who erected an altar in Greta Bridge in honor of the local nymphs. The sincere belief that each locality has its own deity is typical of both the Celts and the Romans. The Romans had no difficulty in recognizing these local deities of the lands they had conquered. What's more, they seem seriously concerned about finding out their names and honoring them, if only as a precaution. The darker side was the belief in ghosts and the need to appease them. Here we reach the very core of Roman religion, very close to the Britons, the animistic belief in the existence of special spirits of the hearth, home, family, ancestors, places and objects outside the home, a belief that goes back to times much earlier than the official acceptance of the classical gods. Olympus. Archaeological evidence points to an element of black magic in the form of written curses, some of which even now cannot be read without disgust. On a lead plate from Clothall near Baldock, it is written backwards (a common technique in magic): "Sim curses Tacitus, and this curse will make her rot from the inside, like bad blood." It is certainly not a mere coincidence that after the excavation of the temple at Ulee (Gloucestershire), the number of curse tablets known throughout the Roman world almost doubled. The classical sources say that the Britons were preoccupied with the observance of rites. The peculiarity of Roman influence was manifested in the fact that the Romans introduced new artistic and architectural techniques for expressing religious feelings and a written language that made it possible to fix these feelings in a clear and durable form. The religious customs of the Romans, similar in spirit to Roman law, provided for the exact execution of every action and word. The meticulousness with which the Romano-British formulated their dedications and curses shows the kinship and inseparable connection of new possibilities - the transfer of verbal formulas in writing - with their own ritual inclinations.

After the invasion of Scotland, Antoninus Pius no longer undertook any military action within the Roman world, but from the 60s of the 2nd century. the situation began to change. About 158 ​​some disturbing events took place in Britain. There is evidence that a rebellion of the Brigantes had to be suppressed (probably made possible by a reckless reduction in the number of troops stationed there for the sake of occupying South Scotland); it seems that even the Antonine Wall was lost for a time. The short-term occupation of Scotland, probably as a result of a punitive campaign (although the chronology of this period is particularly vague), was followed by a final return to Hadrian's Wall. Under the reign of the next emperor, Marcus Aurelius, the pressure of the barbarians on the borders of the Empire as a whole became really serious. The initiative slipped from the hands of Rome, although she did not want to admit it for centuries.

A traveler coming from the Continent would immediately notice one characteristic that sharply distinguished Britain from Northern Gaul, which in many respects developed in parallel with it (except that Britain was under Roman rule a hundred years less). The constant presence of the military would have made him suspect that the first priority of the British rulers was defense: there were three legions, two in the West, in the fortress of Chester and in Caerleon (South Wales), and one in the North, in York, as well as numerous auxiliary parts largely absorbed in holding the nominally pacified tribes beyond the chain of hills on the border of the Province - with a network of fortresses and patrolled roads. In the South, the most notable feature was city ​​walls. The construction of these walls was not (unlike other eras) a one-time measure caused by a specific danger. It was a slow process that began in the 1st century. in such cities as Winchester and Verulamium, and still continuing in the 70s of the III century. By the beginning of the II century. the three prestigious colonies had walls, and the spirit of competition between the cities seemed to be awakened everywhere. However, there must have been a good enough reason to outweigh the reluctance with which Roman emperors gave permission for the construction of fortifications where their enemies or rebels could settle (the walls were paid for by local residents, but the consent of the emperor was required); moreover, this cause had to be of a permanent nature, so that the process of building walls continued even after the British had seriously challenged the authorities several times. The lack of fortifications in the villas led to unrest in the countryside and made one fear a peasant uprising. The reason could be due to the same factor that forced the legions to be kept in the Province, and auxiliary units where they were placed: awareness of the threat of a barbarian invasion from outside and unrest in the mountainous areas of the Province itself. The cities that stood on the main roads were an obvious target for the barbarians and military units on the march. In the ancient world, city walls were more or less impregnable, except when an army equipped with advanced military equipment and everything necessary for a long siege stepped in, or when the attackers had friends in the city. Thus the city walls were an excellent defense against savage tribes, and their abundance in Britain shows that the threat from that side was much more serious than abroad, in Gaul.

However, the construction of the walls took a long time, and sometimes it was necessary to take action quickly. A sign of an impending crisis was the appearance around the second half of the 2nd century. earthen fortifications on the outskirts of many British cities. For example, in Cirencester, an earthen rampart connected already built massive stone gates and towers, as if necessity forced them to interrupt the unhurried construction of fortifications according to the original plan and immediately put the defenses on alert. Among the many possible explanations for this crisis period the most probable seems to be an uprising in the North around 180, which was accompanied by a barbarian invasion across the border, widespread damage and the death of a Roman general. A less plausible explanation seems to be the claims of the ruler of Britain, Clodius Albinus, to the imperial throne in 193-197.

This attempt and the events of that time that accompanied it herald the beginning of a new period in the history of the Empire, which affected the fate of Britain much more decisively than in neighboring Gaul. The great wars of Marcus Aurelius on the Danube, which eventually marked the beginning of the unrelenting onslaught of the barbarians in the West, could, if not prevented by his death, lead to the realization of his goal - the conquest of Central Europe north of the Danube. Instead, the year 180 was the year of the collapse of the system of declaring heirs to the imperial throne, which was born by a century of sane and extremely gifted emperors. The accession of Commodus, the terrible son of Marcus Aurelius, coincided with the beginning of the hostilities in the North of Britain, which were mentioned above. In Britain, as elsewhere, attempts to reinforce discipline in the Roman army had paradoxical consequences. With the end of a short period in which emperors were often killed and quickly succeeded each other, when civil wars resumed, the army assumed a much more influential position in society, and serious changes took place in the state system itself. The winner in the end was the unbending Septimius Severus, who defeated Clodius Albinus in Gaul. But the army did not return to the role of the disciplined and dedicated auxiliary force that it had performed for a thousand years; on the contrary, Septimius Severus, whose main task was to preserve his own dynasty, tried to subordinate everything to the interests of the troops.

3rd century emperors no longer tried to pretend that they rule by common consent. Senators whom the emperors of the 2nd c. tried, more or less sincerely, to involve in management both in the civil and military spheres, retreated before the military, from among which professional officers were supplied, more and more necessary for the army. The former distinction between Roman citizens and stateless provincials, already fading as the latter gained the status of the Romans, is now completely erased, and it has been replaced by a new class structure - in the face of the law, society was divided into higher ( honestiores) and lower ( humiliores). It is very important that the warriors fell into the first category. By the middle of the century, rampant inflation had seriously damaged the credibility of the coin in circulation; the former economic system of manufacturing centers, serving vast regions of the Roman world through trade based on a money economy, was gradually replaced by locally concentrated industry.

In the first quarter of the 3rd c. Septimius Severus and his dynasty seemed to bring stability back with them, even if it was supported by a military aristocracy. But in itself it was not a reliable support. In the middle of the century, the next killed emperor was quickly replaced by his successor, depending on the changed preferences of the army. It was impossible to cope with the old and fatal weak point of military leaders - personal ambitions - and with the readiness of a Roman soldier to follow his commander. And at that moment, when the barbarians attacked the Empire both in the East and in the West at once, an almost complete catastrophe broke out. In the East, the troops of the assembled Persian Empire captured the emperor Valerian, while the Germans, again and again raiding, destroyed the unfortified cities of Gaul and made it impossible for Rome to defend the cities and lands along the Rhine, constantly keeping troops there. By 260, the situation in most of the Empire was deplorable.

Until recently it was believed that Britain was similarly ruined when Clodius Albinus launched his unsuccessful campaign against the Continent against Septimius Severus, withdrawing troops from Britain in the process and clearing the way for a barbarian invasion. But archeological evidence no longer supports this assumption. Nevertheless, at the end of the life of Septimius Severus, the tribes on the northern frontier were such a serious threat that it gave him reason to choose Britain as the object of a new campaign of conquest. The Romans never gave up their claims. Now their main goal was the conquest of Scotland in order to complete the conquest of the island. And, apparently, the interest of the Severan dynasty in Britain breathed new life into the Province, which was in decline. Probably in connection with the personal visit of the emperor, London was put in order and provided with new public buildings and the most extensive ring of walls in Britain; also during the Severan period, its coastline magically acquired embankments stretching for more than half a mile. While the military campaign was planned, the emperor's court was located, most likely, in York. By this time, extensive work had already been carried out beyond the Wall, in the northern fortresses, many of which, apparently, had remained abandoned since the defeat inflicted by the barbarians in the early 80s of the 2nd century. There are reasons to suppose that York took over some of the administrative functions that had previously been concentrated in London; this may have happened after the re-conquest of Scotland by the Antonines, when the distance over which communication was required increased. Approximately at the beginning of the III century. the city, which grew up side by side with the Roman military fortress, was awarded the honorary rank of a Roman colony. There is nothing surprising in the fact that London and York were chosen as twin capitals at that not too well-defined moment of the Severan rule, when Britain was divided into two provinces. This was in keeping with the new policy of reducing the number of legions at the disposal of each ruler, and thereby reducing the risk of rebellion.

After the death of the emperor, pressure was put on his successor, and therefore the conquest of Scotland was postponed, although significant successes had already been achieved. Nevertheless, the borders have become practically secure. Britain as a whole seems to have escaped the ruin that was common for this time. Development slowed down, but the cities retained their active role, and rural villas, though not expanded, were at least supported. The handicraft, which is especially evident in the case of pottery, has only benefited from the difficulties faced by competitors on the continent. Some public works that might have been expected were not carried out: for example, to clean up the consequences of a serious flood in Fenlands. But the defenses of Britain were constantly being refurbished, and on the south and east coasts, at Brancaster and Reculver, new fortresses were erected, probably to control the routes to the Continent—not yet an indication of an immediate threat from overseas barbarians. In 260, the Germans caused a lot of trouble in Gaul (though the worst was yet to come anyway), and the central government in Rome lost power. Germany, Gaul, Spain and Britain submitted to their emperor, making up the "Empire of the Gallic provinces" ( Imperium Galliarum). This entity originated under Clodius Albina, and later revived as an important part of the restored empire. From that time on, the possession of a peaceful and prosperous Britain, with its strong, combat-ready army, of almost legendary value in the sense of propaganda, must have been a great consolation to the Gallic emperors.

In the 70s of the 3rd century, the seemingly inevitable, from our point of view, collapse of the Empire was prevented. Both then and later, the Romans behaved as if Rome could never fall. Emperors, pretenders to the throne, and "emperor makers" did not stop killing each other, but a succession of great soldier emperors on the throne, nevertheless, achieved a restoration of balance in the armed forces in the face of barbarians and pacification of rival officials, proceeding to the revival of the Empire in its physical and institutional sense. The success was so significant that the Empire was able to survive for another two centuries in the West (and could have lasted much longer) and twelve centuries in the East. In 274, Emperor Aurelian abolished the Gallic Empire and returned Britain to central authority. However, the immediate future of Britain turned out to be different than that of the Gallic part of the once independent northwestern state. The cities of Gaul were still unfortified in 276, when, according to written sources, in the heaviest of the barbarian invasions, fifty or sixty cities were captured and then recaptured by the Romans. In north-eastern France, archeological data show how at the end of the 3rd century. Villa after villa empties, in a region that once featured an unusually dense network of really large farmhouses and their surrounding estates. No one else lived in these houses.

Britain presents a striking contrast. In the 50-70s of the III century. one can note a rather modest scale of construction, but not a general decline; all more new buildings, especially villas, are dated by archaeologists to around 270-275, such as the villas at Whitcomb and Forchester Court, on the western outskirts of the Cotswolds. One curious assumption has been put forward, according to which there was a "leakage of capital" from Gaul to Britain. There is no hard evidence for this theory yet, but with a few corrections it is very attractive. There is certainly no doubt that the beginning of the golden age of Romano-British villas, whose heyday was long attributed to the 4th century, was laid in the 70s of the 3rd century. However, it does not appear that the landowners could capitalize on their derelict Gallic estates (in other words, profitably sell them). When these estates were repopulated at the end of the century, they were abandoned lands that were distributed to settlers brought there by order of the government. An unnecessarily limited view of the landowner, the a priori belief that the typical provincial landowner owned a single estate and lived most of the time in a villa, is not usually discussed. The possession of more than one estate was common in the upper strata of society in the Roman world, in which landed property (in many parts of the Empire at the same time) served as one of the main signs of wealth and status. In the case of Britain and Gaul of that period, it seems quite probable that the owners of lands on both sides of the English Channel decided to transfer their residences from Gallic villas to possessions that, in an extremely dangerous era, seemed surprisingly well protected; the most cautious might have begun the move when the Gallic Empire still existed. Perhaps some circumstantial evidence of this is the fact that after 276, when the cities of Gaul were finally walled, the fortifications, although very solid (in contrast to the British), were mostly of small extent, sometimes more resembling powerful fortresses, not fortified cities. And so it should have turned out, if there were not a sufficient number of magnates seriously interested in this area, from whom it would be possible to obtain funds for the defense of the city.

In terms of architecture, the walls of these Gallic fortresses are very similar to those built in Britain around the same time, but they are not cities. Several new coastal fortifications were erected in southern Britain, of the same type, with very high stone walls and massive towers projecting from them, and older fortresses such as Brancaster and Reculver were rebuilt in the same manner. Much later, in the 5th century, the commander of the "Saxon Shore" ordered a list of them; he stubbornly believed that they appeared as a line of defense developed against the Saxon sea robbers. Perhaps this is an anachronism. There is some reason to believe that Aurelian's successor, Probus, took both sides of the English Channel under tight control, laying the same type of chain of coastal fortresses in Britain and Gaul; but the original goal did not justify itself. The fact that Probus more than once had to suppress serious opposition to his power in Britain suggests that the "Saxon Shore" at that stage had more to do with political security than border defense. Britain was a sweet spot (and in this period of need more than ever), but it was kept mainly for the sake of control of the English Channel.

This fact is illustrated by a remarkable custom. In 287, a high-ranking Roman officer named Carausius, who was in charge of a military operation to clear the Channel of pirates, was suspected of allowing pirates to raid and steal booty when his fleet, in turn, took possession of it. Anticipating punishment, Carausius rebelled and established control over Britain, which was again under the rule of the local emperor. This episode has been strongly romanticized, but it should be noted that neither Carausius nor other Romans who claimed the imperial title before or after him considered Britain as something independent. Carausius' behavior was typical - he gently insisted on the equivalence of his coin and on fraternal relations with his royal colleagues, who actually held the rest of the Empire and could give his fictitious position character. joint management whole. Overthrowing the sea-protected regime of Carausius proved extremely difficult. He was deposed and killed by Allectus, one of his men, after Carausius lost his foothold on the Continent in the siege of Boulogne in 293; however, the central government in Rome was only able to carry out a successful invasion of Britain three years later. The English Channel has once again proved how difficult it is.

Even apart from the fact that, both in terms of the art of navigation and in terms of the favor of fate, Allectus was going to be defeated (besides, he did not seem to arouse any enthusiasm among part of the regular garrison of Britain), by 296 the rebellious administration of Britain found itself in the face of a much more formidable central authority. During these few years, important changes took place in the Roman state, which open the period known as the "Late Roman Empire". The emperor Diocletian became the driving force behind the transformations. Like Augustus, he drew on earlier precedents in Roman history and with his reforms initiated a transformation of the Roman state that lasted about half a century. Diocletian attempted to deal with chronic political instability by creating a system of two senior emperors ( Augusti, Augusts) and two younger ones ( Caesars, Caesars), who automatically inherited the elders. The size of each province was again reduced; they now organized themselves into "dioceses" led by a new stratum of civil officials known as vicars (vicarii), to whom the rulers (no longer commanders of the troops) reported from now on. Approximately doubled military units, led by new commanders, strengthened the defense of the borders. As a means of preventing internal plots or military mutinies, an elaborate attempt was made to create a special aura around the imperial personages. The comprehensive rise in the status of the civil services has been phenomenal. The impact on art, fashion and customs was no less pronounced.

The economy underwent extremely severe shocks during that period. The problem of labor shortages was now solved by imposing strict controls on the movements of workers and making many professions hereditary. In rural areas, this problem was especially acute. Thus the system of estates, which during the Late Republic, thanks to wars abroad, could count on a constant supply of cheap slaves, during the Early Empire was increasingly inclined to lease land for short periods to a large number of free holders. The catastrophic situation in which the economy of the 3rd century found itself spurred the outflow of people from the earth. In response, Diocletian, by his law, actually created a layer of dependent peasantry - columns (coloni). They tried to curb inflation (without much success) with the help of elaborate price legislation (for example, on British woolen capes, carpets and beer). The position of persons in the public service became more and more secure due to partial or full payment for their activities. Warriors, who previously had to buy weapons for themselves at their own expense, were now supplied with everything necessary by state workshops, and the salaries of officials gradually began to be evaluated in the same way as the allowance of the military. Taxation skyrocketed to offset the cost of reforms; the new, clear structure of society was to become even more rigid in response to attempts to avoid paying certain specific taxes that were imposed on certain classes in the social hierarchy.

In Britain, the new order was to be introduced shortly after its re-conquest in 296 by the Caesar of the West, Constantius I, father of Constantine the Great. By timely delivering London from the onslaught of the retreating Frankish mercenaries in the service of Allectus, he thus won a huge propaganda victory. This event was in many ways a harbinger of the future.

Apparently, the South was the most devastated, where a short-term military campaign was concentrated, as a result of which Allect was defeated. In the North, archeological evidence speaks of a vigorous restoration of defensive structures undertaken at the initiative of Constantius, which is more like a concern for the future than the elimination of destruction caused by the enemy. There is reason to believe that the long period of peace made the maintenance and staffing of the fortresses not the highest priority. Constantius had other plans as well. Moreover, the unconvincing denials of his contemporaries only reinforce the impression that he was determined, as soon as the opportunity presented itself, to launch another of those honorable campaigns in Scotland that meant so much to ambitious Roman emperors. Having become Augustus, he wasted no time in preparing for war, unleashing it in 306. Sources attribute to him a victory over the Picts (the first time an enemy in Scotland is named by name); and the pottery of this period, found at Cramond at the eastern end of the Antonine Wall, and in the old fortress of the Severs on the River Tay, suggests that his plan included another attack on the eastern part of the Highlands. Like Septimius Severus, Constantius returned to York and died there. Like Severa, he was accompanied by his successor.

It is safe to say that York witnessed one of the turning points in history when the army crowned Constantine the Great. This enterprise was surprisingly spontaneous, largely due to the influence of a king of the Germans named Crocus, who accompanied Constantius as an important ally - and completely contrary to the spirit of Diocletian's institutions. It marked the beginning of a chain of events, as a result of which Constantine became the only emperor. The supreme power was in the hands of a man who, unlike Diocletian, did not look back too much at the traditions of the past, but, like him, was eminently capable of both thinking and acting. The innovations of Constantine, based on the conservative but large-scale reforms of Diocletian, determined the further course of historical events for centuries.

It has long been recognized that the first half of the 4th c. was a kind of golden age of Roman Britain. Now we see that the beginning of this prosperity was laid in the previous century and some stable trends appeared already in the 70s of the III century. The period of grandiose prosperity certainly lasted until the 40s of the 4th century, and possibly captured the second half of the century. And it is quite legitimate to assume that his most brilliant phase was, in particular, the merit of Constantine. There is reason to believe that, like his father, he also returned to Britain and achieved great military successes there. We know for sure that at one stage of his reign, Constantine gave a higher status to the mint in London, founded by Carausius. It is quite possible that it was he who was responsible for replacing the name "London" with "Augusta"; and it is strongly suspected that the magnificent new walls of the fortress of York, facing the river, were a deliberate demonstration of the power of the man who was crowned here and who shared Hadrian's passion for great architectural enterprises.

The atmosphere of that era is embodied in the large villas of Britain of the 4th century. In social and economic terms, the Late Empire in the West is characterized by the distribution of wealth, and partly power, between the landed aristocracy, on the one hand, and the emperor, court and army, on the other. These forces periodically clashed with each other, but gradually tended to unite. Between them were a relatively smaller urban middle class compared to the past and smaller landowners. By and large, it is the members of local councils ( curiales) most felt the burden of change on their shoulders, paying for the establishment of a new order in the Empire. What was once a badge of distinction has now become a hereditary yoke, and legislation gradually cuts off all escape routes.

Who, then, were the undoubtedly wealthy inhabitants of the larger Romano-British villas? Some of them may have been wealthy citizens who moved here from anywhere. If they were senators or government officials of the appropriate level, they were exempted from duties Curials. Yet the extraordinary tenacity with which the Latin forms of the indicative mood were preserved in the speech of the educated people of Britain, nevertheless gradually becoming a curiosity on the island, suggests that the local aristocracy remained an influential social force. It is very likely that, surprisingly, the blow dealt to it in the previous century was not so terrible. This suggests that Constantine may have shown a special favor towards her.

Like the rural estates in eighteenth-century England, which are in many respects a fair comparison, these villas differ in plan, complexity, and size. Some features are present throughout - they were all built from durable building materials, there was central heating (in the form of a hot air system; heating was provided by wood, sometimes coal), glazed windows, mosaic floors and, very often, a more or less improved bathing room. Agricultural buildings usually adjoined the villa; perhaps most of them, like their Georgian sisters, bordered on land. Roman literature clearly shows that the extent and importance of the economic use of each individual villa differed greatly depending on the personality of the owner: the villa could be both the main source of income and simple entertainment. Large houses such as Woodchester (Chadworth) or North Lee did not stand alone, but eloquently formed the top of a whole pyramid of villas. The small villas that were previously formed on the basis of the farms of the Iron Age have been preserved and improved, or new medium and small villas have taken their place. This is the best evidence that a significant stratum of the nobility of the middle class survived in Britain. Yes, some villas are disappearing, but that's par for the course in calmer times as well. It is also important that in this period the villa becomes, at least, a very characteristic feature of the landscape.

According to the observation made, the main equipment of the villas was often duplicated. This made it possible to put forward a kind of hypothesis, according to which the economic complex, according to the preserved Celtic custom, was jointly owned by two families or two owners. A simpler explanation is that in the Roman world, any noble person traveled with numerous servants and friends, and visiting each other's estates was a common practice. The inns were so badly reputed that the well-connected traveler preferred to move from one villa of his acquaintances to another. It appears that most of the Romano-British villas were connected to the main roads and were located at a distance of ten miles (or so) from the city. The social connection between the villa and the city, and even more between the villas, thus appears to be just as important as their role in the economy.

It is not known how much the development of large villas changed the face of agriculture. Already in the II century. the similarity in the layout of the mutual arrangement between the villa and the village, as well as the owner's house, becomes noticeable manor and the village of later times. It is possible that in Britain in the 4th century. there were relatively few columns (coloni) Diocletian - or this change in the field of law did not have a noticeable impact on the situation in this rather calm corner of the Empire. Small local-style farms still predominate, although there are some signs of their consolidation into larger entities. More significant changes have been made to various crafts, for which the supply of luxury goods to villas has become an impetus for development. Among them, the most famous are the local "schools" of mosaicists - enterprises or groups of enterprises with workshops, concentrated mainly in Sirencester, Chesterton (Water Newton), Dorchester (Dorset), Broe-on-the-Humber and somewhere else in the South. Other artisans who dealt with less durable materials may have acted in a similar way, such as fresco painters (enough examples of their work survive to illustrate its importance and the level to which it reached), furniture makers and other workers who supplied everything you need in wealthy homes.

In ancient times, the countryside was used not only for agricultural purposes and not only for the entertainment of rich people. The destruction of the long-distance transport of goods contributed to the development of more than one branch of British craft, for example, the large-scale production of pottery in Nin Valley. We can observe how in the IV century. equally numerous pottery from Hampshire, whose production was expanded in the 3rd century. (mainly in the area that later became Alice Holt Royal Reserve), successfully takes over the London market and thrives on it.

In these early years the end of the Roman period, new features of the administrative system are formed; the rulers of the provinces of the new model also corresponded to them. The most important edicts may have come from Milan (which the emperors for some time preferred to Rome) or, after 324, from Constantinople. But from the time of Constantius I, the central government, dealing with current affairs, was located in Trier on the Moselle. The civil administration of Britain was headed by the Gallic praetorian prefect living in Trier, to whom he reported vicar (vicarius) of a British diocese. The prefecture included Britain, Spain, and northern and southern Gaul. The residence of the British curate was most likely in London. The rulers of four provinces obeyed him: Maxima Caesariensis(apparently centered in London), Britannia Prima(Chirencester), Flavia Caesariensis(Lincoln?) and Britannia Secunda(York?); each had its own staff of employees. As well as taking care of ordinary civilian affairs, this structure played a vital role in the military sphere, providing supplies - it included new government workshops (for example, there is a record of the existence in Britain of a weaving workshop that made uniforms for the Roman army). A 5th-century document referring to the unusual insignia of a British vicar indicates that at least at this time there were troops under his command. More importantly, the supply of the army was in the hands of civilians, and this made it possible to effectively control it. In social terms, the top of the new administration was formed from educated representatives of the middle and upper strata of Roman society. The post of vicar of Britain could serve as an important rung in the career ladder, and among the people known to us who held it, there were no mediocrities. The policy that people from a given province were not appointed to high positions survived until the beginning of the 5th century, and many could count on one or another place in the imperial court.

The financial administration of the province was very different from its predecessors during the Early Empire. Although the center of financial management was again located in London, the former position of procurator of the province disappeared. The rulers of each of the British provinces were responsible to the curate for the collection of taxes, and city councils were expected to collect funds from individual taxpayers. However, the other two financial departments were independent of the vicar; each of them was headed by an official from the diocese, directly accountable to the secretaries of the emperor. One of them collected monetary taxes, supervised the minting of coins, managed mines, and also performed some other duties. Another was in charge of the Crown's holdings in Britain; local procurators reported to him, who were personally responsible for them. Often, these two departments worked closely together and could resort to the help of the rulers of the provinces, entrusting them with the direct execution of their duties.

The internal structure of the army no longer correlated with the provinces. At the same time, the former distinction between legions and auxiliary units was replaced by a new division into garrisons, or border troops ( limitanei), and mobile warheads ( comitatenses), and the latter had a higher status and received more rewards. Many of the former units have survived, especially in Britain, where most of the old frontier troops have not changed significantly, although the general character of the units has changed. At that time, the troops stationed in Britain were classified as frontier; this once again indicated that it was viewed more as a region in need of protection than as a region from which a field army could be quickly put forward. The commander of the border troops bore the rank dux- so was dux Britanniarum. And the mobile units, in turn, commanded comes rei militaris, which has a higher rank. Under Constantine himself, there was only one centralized field army. But under his constantly fighting sons, several larger field armies arose, led by commanders of even higher rank. Some of these troops managed to achieve permanent status; the smaller operational groups that separated from them were under the command of the mentioned committees (comites rei militaris).

Field armies included both old units, retained or reformed, as well as many new ones. A significant part of the latter were people of German origin, and in the 4th century they received many recruits from Germany itself. Approximately half of the regular army in the West was German, and the other half was Roman, including the command staff. Thus, in 367 dux Britanniarum, who was defeated by the barbarians, bore the name Fullofaude. By the end of the century, German officers already occupied the highest positions in the army. Although among such people it was no longer considered prestigious to take Roman names, they fully internalized the outlook on life and ambitions of their Roman colleagues. Despite this, how social group, army officers of the 4th c. very different from civil officials of the corresponding rank. Between some of the emperors and their officers, on the one hand, and the top of the civil bureaucracy, on the other, there were deep differences in the cultural sphere (we will not call this hostility and contempt); the friction between the emperors, their courts, the new capitals and the old aristocracy, which still expected something from Rome, turned into a socially and politically significant factor.

The last component state system Constantine was the Church. The traditional beliefs of the Roman state fully met the needs of society, but could give little to each person individually. Simultaneously with the collapse of the peace achieved by the Antonines, and the crisis of the III century. there is a growing general desire for a more personal religion that would provide solace in this life, give it meaning, and promise a better life in the future. Close ties with the East led to the spread of various Eastern "mystery religions", beliefs that offered mystical revelations and personal contact with the deity. Hadrian personally performed rites at the ancient tombs during the Eleusinian mysteries in Greece; many mystery cults were widely accepted and respected. The Persian cult of Mithra gained popularity in military and commercial circles because its adherents' emphasis on honesty, discipline, and strong brotherhood was in keeping with the ideals and interests of merchants and officers alike. Unlike Christianity, the cult of Mithras did not arouse suspicions of a political nature and therefore was not persecuted. In Britain, sanctuaries of Mithra appeared precisely where troops were stationed or an influential trading community was formed - in Radchester, Carraborough, Housetides near Hadrian's Wall, and also in London. The weak point of this cult was its elitism, closeness to women and limitation within the framework of one social class. Its rites were sufficiently similar to those of the Christians to give the impression of blasphemy to Christians, and there are indications (for example, in London and Carraborough) of possible attacks on the adherents of the cult of Mithra by Christians at the time of their supremacy; during the IV century. the cult of Mithras is largely fading away.

Recent studies of Christianity's struggle to survive after the end of Roman rule suggest that Christianity was more widespread and more deeply rooted than was believed until recently. However, it is extremely important not to transfer the features characteristic of the 5th and 6th centuries to the 3rd and 4th centuries. Everyone agrees that before the IV century. Christianity did not have much influence in Britain. Britain in the 3rd century already had their own martyrs - St. Alban in Verulamia, Sts. Julius and Aaron in Caerleon. The fact that Britain was part of the empire of Constantius I (whose first wife was Saint Helena, mother of Constantine) and that he did not allow the last great persecution of Christians in these parts to go beyond the destruction of churches, may have prevented the early emergence of any significant cult. martyrs in Britain. On the other hand, this circumstance could persuade wealthy Christians to think about moving here from more dangerous parts of the Empire, gradually increasing the stratum of villa owners.

As far as is known, the earliest complex of Roman church tombstones (found at Water Newton), which dates with almost certainty to the very beginning of the 4th century, was made in Britain, and bishops appear here only a year after the promulgation of the Edict of Milan, which legalized Christian Church, and their titles indicate that the sees were located in the capitals of four British provinces. These facts draw our attention to the fundamental changes that took place under Constantine the Great. In the III century. the strengthening of the absolute power of the emperor was periodically accompanied by attempts to introduce a monotheistic state religion. From the time of Constantine, the main factor in Roman politics (and increasingly in private life) was ideology. From now on, in order to show their loyalty, it was not enough to formally observe the ritual side of the state religion: Christianity, the new state religion, required faith. The attitude towards pagan beliefs remained tolerant for a long time. But tolerance gradually disappeared, despite the powerful opposition from a significant part of the Roman aristocracy, which saw in the old religion the stronghold of Rome as such and at the same time identified with it the opposition at the Court. There were even short periods when pagan emperors reappeared. However, the emperor Constantius II, who declared it the duty of the emperor to monitor the uniformity of doctrines, gave a powerful impetus to development within the Church itself, which played a huge role in the future. From the middle of the IV century. the persecution of heretics at the state level gave a new dimension to the politics of loyalty.

Recent studies have revealed high level Christianization of Britain in the 4th century, but this should not be surprising, but the fact that he was not even higher. The foregoing prompts a closer look at the true nature of the British church of that time. The former idea of ​​a Christian city and a pagan countryside is not confirmed. The mention of bishops under Constantine suggests that there were also urban communities. An unusual tiny church excavated outside the walls of Silchester and examples of much more common churches (with cemeteries) built over the graves of martyrs and other prominent Christians at Verulamia, Canterbury confirm this. But the most famous monuments of Roman-British Christianity of the 4th c. associated with villas: for example, the mosaics at Frampton and Hinton St. Mary, or the frescoes from Lullingston. The location of archaeological finds indicates that the scope of the spread of Christianity was very heterogeneous. The cemetery at Dorchester (Dorset) speaks of the existence of a large and wealthy Christian community, which was supported by the surrounding villas; in other places, similar cemeteries had nothing to do with them. A curious series of church fonts, made of lead, were used not in cities, but in rural areas or in small settlements - it seems that they were looked after by local landowners; a significant number of them have been found in East Anglia, where there is evidence of the existence of truly large fortunes in the late Roman period.

Constantine dealt a severe blow to both pagan cults and city self-government when he transferred treasures and donations from pagan temples to Christian churches and, for the same purpose, withdrew significant sums from the city treasury. In the IV century. wealth was rapidly concentrated in the hands of the largest landowners, on the one hand, and the state with its institutions, on the other. It is not surprising that we find villas at the forefront of Christianity in Britain, where they were such a prominent feature of the period. Given these circumstances, it is not surprising that the evidence for Christianization is so heterogeneous. Since the degree of influence of Christianity in the area depended on whether the local landowner was a staunch Christian (or an ambitious politician) or not, this is quite understandable. Since the construction of churches and other Christian monuments depended on an active city council, as before, the care of public churches and other civil buildings, respectively, care could be more or less conscientious. It is clear that many more bishops from Britain attended the Council of Rimini in 359, but none of the titles survive, so it is not known in which cities they were located. It is probably telling that at least some of them had some difficulty raising funds for travel expenses. If urban Christian communities were weak or in decline more than a century after Constantine's campaign, how did Christianity survive after the end of Roman rule? The answer may lie in the eventual union of Christianity with the landed class throughout the West, which had parallels in fifth-century Britain. During this period, in contrast to the 4th century, we see an almost unanimous acceptance of Christianity by the villagers. Since most of the population in any region lived on earth, this allows us to expect the presence of Christianity there, at least as a subculture. And even the fact that in late Roman times the rural clergy, unlike their urban counterparts, were relatively poorly educated and occupied an obscure social position (in the countryside, even bishops could differ little from dependent land holders under the landowner), may speak in favor of their closeness. with the agricultural layer and serve as additional confirmation that the Church, as well as faith, survived, in spite of everything, together with the owners of the land.

How long could the fourth-century society, based on rural villas, maintain its former prosperity, which so distinguished Britain from other parts of the Empire? Describing a series of barbarian raids on the lands bordering Britain in 360, Ammianus, a well-informed historian of the time, reports that at that time "the provinces were seized with fear", and significantly adds: they "were already ruined by the misfortunes of past years", Moreover, it has been suggested, based on archeological data, that around 350 the cities were “finished” (later we will have to consider this assumption). If you do not go into details, the picture is very different from the one we saw at the beginning of the century.

There are good reasons to believe that the golden age did not long outlive Constantine himself. After his death in 337, the Empire was divided with difficulty between his three sons - Constantius II, Constans and Constantine P. Britain became part of the possession of the young Constantine. Dissatisfied with his share, he attacked Constans in 340 and suffered a crushing defeat. Many years have passed since the British army last faced a military disaster. The resulting weakness and probably disillusionment in the country resulted in Constant's unusual journey across the strait in the dead of winter, ending in the invasion of 343, the surviving traces of which are concentrated on the northern border of Britain. In 360, to which the words of Ammianus quoted by us refer, the frontier problems undoubtedly worsened: the Scots from Ireland and the Picts from Scotland violated the agreement with Rome; this meant that there were earlier agreements reached through diplomacy (probably in the usual way - with the help of gold). In 364 they returned again and again, this time accompanied by the Attacotts (perhaps also from Ireland) and the Saxons. Thus the great barbarian invasion of 367, which we are now approaching, represented the culmination of a long period of threats from without. But in the territory under Roman rule, the situation was at least as bad.

In 350, Constans died as a result of a palace conspiracy, and an officer of Germanic origin named Magnentius ascended the throne. From now on, the western part of the Empire was at war with the eastern, which was ruled by Constantius II, the last of the sons of Constantine. The reign of Magnentius, who was a Christian but tolerant of pagans, lasted three and a half years and led to disastrous consequences. Costius II, who, as we have seen, took upon himself the duty of combating Christian heresies, also hated pagans; he even re-introduced death penalty for pagan worship and shocked the Senate by removing the ancient altar of Victory from the Senate building in Rome. Britain came under particularly scrutiny after he finally took over. The main goal of a certain Paul, whom Constantius II appointed head of the imperial office, was to hunt for dissidents among the inhabitants of the island. Bitterly joking, he was aptly nicknamed The Chain. Paul's immediate task was to arrest the military who supported Magnentius, but soon, unrestrained by anyone, he created a real reign of terror, in which false denunciations played a decisive role, terrifying even the most devoted officers. Martin, vicar of Constantius himself in Britain, paid with his life for an unsuccessful attempt to end Paul. One can only guess how many prominent families, by chance, were involved in this whirlpool over half a century, in addition to those who were related to politics. The emperor approved of confiscations, exiles, imprisonment, torture and execution without requiring any proof. The confiscations of property alone were to have a profound effect on the landed system of Britain, while the devastation both among the townspeople and in the army could only weaken their will to resist the barbarians who were now advancing upon them.

The disasters reached their zenith in 367. The Picts, Scots, and Attacotts invaded Britain; Franks and Saxons raided the Gallic coast. Both imperial commanders--the Emperor Valentinian himself was in northern Gaul--and the senior officers in charge of Britain were taken by surprise. dux, who led the permanent garrison of Britain, was put out of action, and comes who was responsible for the defense of the coast, was killed. The concerted action of barbarians so dissimilar to each other is the most remarkable feature of what happened. It is known that the betrayal of local natives who served on the border contributed to the situation, but if we evaluate the campaign as a whole, we must assume that there was some unknown barbarian - an outstanding military leader and diplomat. Obtaining detailed information about the disposition of Roman troops and understanding Roman methods of warfare was not so difficult, given how many Germans were in the army of Rome (although cases where they can be suspected of knowingly perfidy towards Rome are extremely rare). The presence of a gifted leader among the barbarians is convinced by the very fact that the attacks were simultaneously carried out by representatives of such different cultures, whose native lands were quite far apart from each other, whose goals differed quite strongly; most of all, maintaining complete secrecy. The Romans, of course, called it conspiracy, and it's hard to disagree with them.

Detachments of barbarians dispersed across Britain, plundering, destroying everything around, capturing prisoners or, if they so desired, killing. The countryside near the main roads must have been especially vulnerable; it seems that not even all the fortified cities could survive. Military and civil power collapsed. The troops fled, some of them unconvincingly claiming the title of demobilized. The political opportunists did not miss this opportunity. Britain was a place of honorable exile for high-ranking offenders who formed a well-documented conspiracy that was thwarted immediately after the restoration of Roman rule in Britain. There is also some evidence that one of the provinces of the British diocese (which was now divided into five provinces) was temporarily in the hands of the rebels.

The response of Emperor Valentinian to the outbreak of disaster was to send a small but powerful unit of elite troops, which was headed by comes rei militaris Theodosius, father of the future Emperor Gratian and grandfather of Theodosius the Great; his own father served committee (comes) Britain under Constant. The use of such special forces was a common practice in the Late Empire if unforeseen problems arose; a similar expedition had already been sent to Britain at least once (in 360), perhaps this was not the only time. At that time, such troops usually consisted of comitatenses. Since the end of the 4th century, the Roman army increasingly included military units of barbarians, led by their own kings, and even entire tribes. Therefore, special forces were formed from the regular troops that were at hand - from barbarian allies, and sometimes only from barbarians - as opposed to specially prepared campaigns or operations. With regard to the future, it is important to realize that in the 5th century, as the military developed, losing the features inherent in the 4th century, the barbarians were no longer hostile aliens from nowhere, but a common phenomenon of everyday life. Barbarian warriors were often hired against other barbarians in the suppression of internal strife and were used during the civil wars in Rome.

Both the military campaign carried out by Theodosius and the restoration of the British province that followed it give the impression of carefully thought out brilliant operations. Effectively liberated London. The troops of permanent deployment were again convened; deserters were forgiven, a combat-ready army was created. The bands of barbarians were defeated one by one, the Saxons were defeated at sea. The stolen property was reimbursed or returned. Administrative power was restored under a new vicar ( vicarius); the province captured by the rebels was returned and named Valence in honor of Valentinian and his brother (and also "colleagues" in the reign from the eastern part of the Empire) Valens. The fortresses were rebuilt, the destroyed cities were restored.

The massive rebuilding of urban fortifications in Britain, accompanied by the addition of high towers projecting outward, a rebuilding archaeologically dated to about the middle of the 4th century, was most likely the initiative of Theodosius, although differences in internal and external arrangements suggest that costs and control were again vested in local city councils. Nevertheless, the fact that the walls were maintained in combat readiness throughout their length greatly affected the state of the cities in the middle and end of the 4th century. It was impossible to maintain such vast fortified areas just for the sake of providing certain strategically important points or even sheltering the rural population in case of danger. There was something else, for the sake of protection of which it was not a pity for constant efforts. What do we mean by saying that the British cities were "done" by about 350? The tacit conviction that the cities of the 4th c. remained the same as in the 2nd century, a clear mistake. Of course, care must be taken not to assume that the changes were the same in all cities. However, the decline and desolation of public buildings can hardly be surprising if the central government plundered the municipal treasury, and the members of the council fell into it against their will. Legislation IV century. time and again tried to prevent the departure from the cities of the representatives of the class, for which the service has now become a hereditary duty, while the higher strata of society were exempted from municipal duties. The ubiquitous bureaucracy has become a new element in society, and we should probably take a closer look in this direction. Five rulers, their staff, household members, guard detachments and many other people associated with them had to be placed somewhere; there were still a considerable number of other officials, and to maintain their bloated apparatus and way of life, allowances of considerable amounts were required. The hopes of every rung of the hierarchical ladder were turned to the brilliant and generous court of the Late Roman Empire. Huge spaces around the metropolitan cities of the 4th century, such as Trier or Arles, once ordinary municipalities, were given over to palaces and other state buildings. We should expect the same at a lower level in many British cities. Indeed, archaeological excavations have shown the construction of large city houses in places as dissimilar as London and Carmarthen, as well as the development of urban life in mid-fifth century Verulamia. and especially in Roxeter. The undeveloped spaces within the city walls that have been excavated should probably be regarded as parks and gardens of public services of a new type, and not as abandoned urban sites, indicating decay. The periodic presence of the emperors themselves in London and York also left its mark on the archaeological evidence.

There is every reason to believe that the restoration under Theodosius was exceptionally successful. Archaeological evidence suggests that many of the villas continued to be inhabited, some were even extended and others built from scratch. Hadrian's Wall was guarded until the very end of Roman rule, although the individual garrisons were reduced in comparison with the past. A new system of signal beacons was placed on the northeast coast. The development of crafts was interrupted by the war of 367, but a number of new features that appeared after the war show that they retained their viability and tendency to develop. Some pagan sanctuaries are disappearing, not surprisingly, but others are still used for worship; in others, towards the end of the century, there are signs that they have been adapted to some new religion, some, perhaps, to Christianity. Forty years after 369 were not as prosperous as the beginning of the century, but the situation on the island does not reveal any evidence of the decline and ruin that historians of the 50s and 60s wrote about. In order to correctly assess what happened in 409, one should be aware that the end of the fourth century in Roman Britain was by no means marked by a rapid regression.

During this period, two more attempts were made to seize the imperial throne, using Britain as a base. In 382 a military leader named Magnus Maximus, Magn Maxim (Maxen Vledig from Welsh lore), defeated the Picts; this made him so popular that it allowed him to proclaim himself emperor and rule parts of the Roman Empire—Britain, Gaul, and Spain—for five years. At this time some of the strongholds in Britain were deserted, and the Twelfth Legion was withdrawn from Chester; but it still remains unclear what effect the campaigns of Maximus and his death at the hands of Emperor Theodosius the Great had on the combat effectiveness of the British troops. Between 392 and 394 Britain became involved in another palace rebellion in which Theodosius lost control of the Western Empire; however, the personality of the military leader (in this case, the Frank) played a more significant role in this story, eclipsing the indecisive emperor of the West. The death of Theodosius in 395 sealed the new distribution of power in the Western Empire for the rest of its history. The joint accession to the throne of the two sons of Theodosius - Honorius in the West and Arcadius in the East - opened a period when the dual government of the two parts of the Empire became a fundamental principle. In the East, power remained in the hands of the emperor or his first minister, a civilian. In the West, the powerful landowning aristocracy, relying on their estates, fought for influence with the professional military who commanded the troops. Three quarters of a century later, both parties came to the conclusion that they were able to get along in the West without an emperor.

The successful control of the West, exercised by Flavius ​​Stilicho, a vandal by birth and commander-in-chief of the last emperor Theodosius, was accompanied by claims to the East. A conspiracy, retaliatory conspiracy, and civil war between Stilicho, Honorius, the Western Roman Senate, and the Goths, led by Alaric, did everything they could to ensure the fall of Roman rule in the West. In Britain, temporary successes against the Picts, Scots, and Saxons and the restoration of the line of defense under the leadership of Stilicho were followed, probably at the very beginning of the 5th century, by the dissolution of part of the troops. We do not know what the extent of it was, but the cessation of the importation of newly minted coinage in 402 may mean that neither the remaining troops nor civil officials received funds from the center. Not surprisingly, this generated extreme discontent. In 406, the British army took part in the first of three rapidly following palace coups. In the last days of this year, large crowds of barbarians crossed the Rhine. The administrative center of the Gallic prefecture was moved to Arles, and no one had time for British usurpers.

The third of the usurpers, acting according to the usual scheme, seized power over Gaul and Spain, and for some time the emperor Honorius reluctantly recognized him as his rightful co-ruler. We again do not know whether there was a total reduction in the British garrison, but it seems that the dissolution of the regular units continued. Nevertheless, the northwestern empire of Constantine III was to be the last state formation of its kind, and even before its final collapse, Britain ceased to recognize the authority of the emperor in any form.

About exactly how this happened, we know insultingly little, but something can be compared. In 408, most of Constantine's army was in Spain, and he was unable to repel the barbarian attacks on Britain. In 409, a rebellion began in this army, led by its commander, a Briton by birth (and he skillfully incited the barbarians in Gaul); at the same time, Britain was again attacked by enemies, including the Saxons. In Britain itself - as in parts of Gaul - an uprising arose, and Constantine's administration was expelled from the country. The onslaught of the barbarian invaders was successfully repelled, and since then Britain has finally broken with Roman rule.

How exactly the British expelled the invaders and what was the state of affairs in the country at that time - all this can only be the subject of scientific conclusions. There are faint signs of efforts by Stilicho and Honorius to induce local residents to organize a defense system or pay for it. It is unlikely that the regular army remained in service when Constantine's officers were removed, it is unlikely that enough people and funds entered the complex administrative structure that supported it. Under the Late Empire, the landed class stubbornly resisted both the conscription of the rural labor force and the payment of taxes. In the 5th century parts whose funding was terminated were disbanded; people dispersed or settled on the ground. Indeed, from 455 onward, the disintegration of the standing army of the West seems to have been in full swing. It is very likely that in Britain, left without control from the center, from 409, detachments of barbarians began to be hired for military service, and some of them could have taken place under Constantine III or even under Stilicho.

There is no reason to believe that the British ever tried to elect an emperor or restore any of the mechanisms of the former system of government. Few of them had experience of such administration (unlike their former officials, the Gallo-Romans), but beyond that, if they shared the views of the fifth-century landed who just got rid of it. Convincing the local nobility that it was beneficial for her to cooperate with Rome was the secret of the success of the British rulers of the 1st century, appointed by the Flavius. There is no reason to believe that the events of 409 undermined the position of the landowning class. Nevertheless, they lost confidence in the emperor, the bureaucracy and the army as the most reliable guarantee for the preservation of their prosperity and well-being. And the cruel political persecutions in Gaul, which were perpetrated by the officers of Honorius after the death of Constantine III, did not support this trust in any way.

AT Notitia Dignitarum contains a complete list of all military and civilian posts in Britain - at least on paper; and this suggests that the return of Britain was taken for granted in the imperial departments - as it had more than once been the case in the past. In fact, a military invasion of Britain was real only once, in a short period of time between 425 and 429. But by that time, other groups of wealthy Roman provincials, especially in the vast Gallic territory, were already beginning to settle down relatively comfortably, hiring barbarians, entering into alliances with them or submitting to their authority.

Any of these options suited the nobility more than direct imperial rule - provided that the barbarians remained accommodating. But for the weakened middle class and artisans, who were increasingly dependent on the army, civil servants, and city churches to provide them with jobs, patronage, and markets, the change was bound to be catastrophic. Archaeological evidence supports a similar pattern in Britain. At the beginning of the 5th century the well-developed pottery industry suddenly ceases to exist; to 420-430 years. the regular minting of coins was suspended. In this case, these facts make determining the date when the Roman settlements were abandoned much more difficult than before. However, there is no evidence that the villas were forcibly removed. Evidence for how long cities may have been active varies greatly over time. In Lincoln we find the main street repaved in the fifth century; imported Mediterranean pottery among the ashes in the heating system of a London house is adjacent to other signs proving that at the beginning of the 5th century. normal life continued there; the forum at Cirencester was kept in order after the regular circulation of the coin ceased; and in Verulamia, a succession of important city structures, succeeding each other in the same place, was brought to an end by the construction of a new canal towards the middle of the century.

There is evidence that after the break with Rome, the British lived under the rule of tyrants (tyranni), or usurpers; according to the most convincing interpretation, powerful natives who filled the vacuum created by the disappearance of legitimate authority. Their origins are mixed: some of them were probably landowners, others were military leaders, Romans or barbarians who were invited to restore order or seize power. The rich burial of a warrior at Gloucester, more British than Saxon in character, could have belonged to such a tyrant, either condottiere who was on the payroll of local residents. And the pretentious wooden buildings of the 5th century in Roxeter may have been the residence of such a leader.

In 429 St. Germanus, an eminent Gallo-Roman bishop, well-informed in Roman society, visited Britain to combat heresies and argued publicly in Verulamia with the local magnates, "extremely wealthy, dressed in luxurious dresses and surrounded by a crowd of servile servants." In 446-447 years. he made another visit to Britain, although apparently under less favorable circumstances. And yet, at least until the 1940s, Britain retained some features of the "post-Roman" or "post-imperial" way of life characteristic of the entire West.

Notes:

Tacitus Cornelius. Biography of Julius Agricola, 13 // Tacitus Krneliy. Cit.: In 2 vols. M., 1993. Vol. 1, S. 319.

Tacitus Cornelius. Biography of Julius Agricola, 17 // Ibid. P.321.

There. P.324.

"Painting ranks" (lat.).

In 43 a strong Roman army landed on the coast of Kent. The sons of Cunobelin were defeated at the Medway, the settlements along the Thames were subdued, and Camulodunus surrendered. The Roman legions moved in three directions: west, northwest, and north. Moving west, a number of fortresses were taken, including Maiden Castle. In their movement to the northwest and north, by 47 the Romans reached the line of north Wales - the Humber, from where it was already close to the mountainous regions. But here the movement of the Romans slowed down, as the tribes of Wales fought furiously and remained undefeated, although their leader, Cunobelin's son Caradoc, was defeated in 51 and was driven north. The queen of the Brigantes tribe betrayed Caradoc to the Romans, but the Brigantes themselves continued to fight. In 61, the Roman army approached the Irish Sea and fell on Snowdon, and then on the stronghold of the Druids - the island of Anglesey.

At the same time, an uprising of the Iceni tribe broke out in the southeast of Britain, caused by the excesses and robberies of the Romans. The rebellious Iceni were led by their queen, Boadicea (Budikka). The rebels defeated the three largest cities, obviously the most subjected to Romanization - Londinium, Camulodunus, Verulamius. Up to 70 thousand people died there, which in itself already confirms the large size of these cities. In the end, the Romans won and crushed the rebels, and Queen Boadicea poisoned herself.

In the 70s and 80s, the Romans conquered Wales and launched an offensive against northern Britain. Between 80 and 84 years. The Roman general Agricola crossed the River Tyne and the Cheviot Hills and entered Perthshire. However, the conquest of this area was superficial; all areas north of Tweed after 85 were abandoned by the Romans.

In 115-120 years. there was an uprising in northern Britain. Emperor Hadrian suppressed it and established a border from Tyne to Solway. This border was fortified with a wall and fortresses in 122–124. About 140, part of Scotland was annexed to Roman Britain up to the line of Fort - Clyde. This frontier line was also fortified with a wall and a series of fortresses. The new wall did not replace Adrianov, but was intended to protect the country located north of Hadrian's Wall.

In 158-160. a new uprising broke out throughout the northern part of Roman Britain, from what is now Derbyshire to the Cheviot Hills. In 183, another revolt followed, as a result of which the second Roman wall was practically abandoned by the Romans. This uprising continued until the arrival of Septimius Severus himself (in 208-211). He rebuilt the wall of Hadrian, which has since become the border of the Roman possessions.

Britain under Roman rule

Until 85, four legions maintained calm in the conquered country, and then three with a certain number of auxiliary troops, which amounted to 35-40 thousand people. These three legions were located mainly in three large fortresses: Isca Silurum (Caerleon), Deva (Chester), Eburacum (York). Detachments were sent from here on various expeditions (to build fortresses, bridges, roads, to suppress minor uprisings).

In addition, there was a network of smaller fortresses with garrisons of 500-1000 people. These fortresses stood along the roads or at strategic points at a distance of 10-15 miles from each other. There were many strongholds along the seashore and in the northern part of Roman Britain as far as the Cheviot Hills, especially in present-day Derbyshire, Lancashire and Yorkshire. A whole series of fortresses went along the wall of Hadrian (their exact number is not known). In all the fortresses there were Roman garrisons (their soldiers were recruited from the Romanized provinces of the empire). Britons could also serve in the auxiliary troops, mainly recruited on the Rhine and in its vicinity. It cannot be assumed that all the Britons were sent to serve only on the continent.

For the spread of Roman culture, the Roman garrisons were of little importance. Outside the fortress walls were Roman or romanized settlements of women, merchants, retired soldiers, but of these settlements, only a few turned into cities, such as York. It is a mere coincidence that Newcastle, Manchester, Cardiff stand on the site of former Roman forts. The number of Roman colonists should not be exaggerated: even in peacetime, no more than 1,000 people a year retired, and the state of peace was rare in Britain. But not all retired legionnaires remained in Britain.

The most serious result of Roman rule was the defense of the British hinterland against attack from without.

Roman culture spreads in the south, in the center and in the east of the island. In these areas, to some extent, we can talk about Romanization, which may have begun even before Claudius, immediately after the campaigns of Caesar. After 43, Roman influence penetrated in two ways: the first was Romanization through administration, the establishment of colonies with Roman citizens, although there were few of them; the second is the Romanization of cities due to the arrival of Roman merchants. The uprising of Budikka was precisely directed against such a Romanization of cities: it led to a mass massacre of the Romans and the Celts loyal to Rome. According to Tacitus (80s), the Britons adopted the language, dress and customs of the Romans. Among the Romanized cities, in addition to the above-mentioned Londinia, Camuloduna and Verulamia, also Kaleva Attrebatum (Silchester), Venta Silurum (Kerwent), Aqua Solis (Bath), Lindum (Lincoln), Glenum (Gloucester), as well as some others ( the names of the cities in "chester" and "caster" speak of their connection with the Roman camps).

By the end of the 1st century the successes of colonization were great, but then things went more slowly. West of the Severn and north of the Trent, colonization did not penetrate at all. The mountainous regions were not affected by Romanization.

When Hadrian's Wall was built, it turned out that to the south of it lies the Roman province, and to the north - prehistoric Britain.

It is characteristic of the development of Roman Britain, first of all, that Roman trade and money poured into it. Britain became a market for handicrafts, especially for the pottery of Roman Gaul. The Romans built roads and ports for both military and commercial interests. Cities were an unwalled cluster of village-type buildings. The exception was Roman stone temples. In these cities, as a rule, handicraft and trade life went on even before the Romans. With the advent of the Romans, it became more intense, but handicrafts lost their national character; only in Wales and in the north did the original Celtic ornament survive. The extraction of metals is developing: tin, lead, silver, gold (mines in Carmarthenshire, II century), copper (in north Wales and Shropshire), iron (in Sussex Weld, Forest of Dean, Midland and in the north); work is going on in the salt mines. Slaves are working everywhere. The proceeds from all this flow into the imperial treasury.

Romanized Britain - a typical province of the empire - was subordinate to the governor. Each Roman municipality and colony was governed independently. Some areas belonging to the imperial fiscus were headed by imperial officials; these were areas of lead mines. Much of Britain was divided among tribes, organized in the Roman fashion, each tribe having a council, a magistrate and a capital.

In the lowlands of southeastern and central Britain in the II-III centuries. the Roman system of farming, based on the exploitation of slaves and columns, is being introduced, Roman-style outbuildings appear. Romanized villas (estates) reach their greatest development at the end of the 3rd - beginning of the 4th centuries. There were rich and luxurious villas, but there were also simple farms. These villas are distributed irregularly throughout Britain: there are more of them in North Kent, West Sussex, Somerset, Lincolnshire. There are very few to the north. Even in villages inhabited exclusively by Celtic peasants, Roman utensils and clothing are found during this period. But only the wealthy Celts lived in Roman-style houses, while the peasants lived in prehistoric huts. Roman-style houses were first built of wood and then of stone, always rectangular in plan with separate rooms, sometimes with baths and central heating.

The land was plowed with heavy plows, the fields were therefore stretched out in strips in length, but the heavy plow appeared before the Romans; it was brought by the Belgae, so that in fact there was a continuation of the Celtic development.

The Romans built excellent roads. The most important roads that diverged from London were: through northern Kent to the Kentish ports; west to Bath and on to south Wales; to Verulamium, Chester, with a branch to Wales; northeast to Camulodunum; to Bath (Aque Solis) and Exeter. In Wales, there were military roads along the entire coast. There were three roads in the north: from York north, with a branch to Carlisle, from Chester north. Communication with the continent was carried out through Kentish ports: from Rutupie (Richborough) to Boulogne and from Camulodun (Colchester) to ports at the mouth of the Rhine. The sea was monitored by the Roman fleet (Classic Britannica). From the middle of the 1st to the end of the 3rd c. his camp was in Boulogne.

Thus, in practice, Roman Britain was divided into two regions: peaceful, Romanized (southeast and center of Britain) and military, where the dominance of the Romans was supported by a system of military fortresses connected by roads and having strong garrisons that could quickly suppress any uprising. In addition, the Romans had to protect the Scottish border, maintaining Hadrian's wall, forts and garrisons, since behind this wall to the north lived the Celtic tribes of the Picts and Scots, always ready for raids and robberies.

At the end of the III century. Roman Britain entered a period of great upheaval: the Saxons and other barbarians of Germanic origin from the continent had long been waiting for an opportunity to attack the east coast of the island. Security was achieved only at the cost of maintaining the mentioned fleet, which carried out guard duty and pursued pirates.

The commander of the Roman fleet in Britain, Belg Carausius, having made an alliance with the pirates, declared himself co-ruler of the emperors Maximian and Diocletian, and in 287 achieved some recognition in Rome. However, in 293 he was killed, and his successor Allectus was defeated by the imperial troops in 296. After the story of Carasius, nothing more is heard about the Roman fleet off the coast of Britain. Perhaps he was no longer sent there, fearing new complications. Instead, a coastal defense system was created from the Wash to the Isle of Wight: 9 forts in the harbors had horse and foot garrisons to repel pirate attacks. It was the "Saxon Shore" (Litus Saxonicum). Saxon raids stopped. In the first quarter of the 4th c. everything was relatively calm, but from 343 the Picts began to raid in the north and the Scots from Ireland. This was the beginning of the first phase of the fall of Roman Britain (343-383).

In the 60s of the IV century. the empire sent additional troops to Britain, and in 363 Theodosius (father) arrived in Britain with large forces and cleared the south of the barbarians, restored the cities and the border rampart (Hadrian's wall). For the next few years, information about what happened in Britain is very scarce. According to archaeological excavations, a number of rural houses were ruined and abandoned around 350, although most of them remained inhabited until 385 and even later. Ammianus reports that from Britain around 360 grain was regularly exported to northern Germania and Gaul.

The second stage in the fall of Roman rule in Britain falls on 383-410. In 383, an officer of the Roman troops in Britain, Magnus Maximus, declared himself emperor, crossed over with troops to Gaul, captured it in 387, and then conquered Italy. He was deposed in 388, but some historians believe that no more Roman troops returned to Britain after that. This is still hardly true: subsequent events show that there were troops in Britain. The news of the Visigoth invasion of Rome caused panic in Britain, where the troops elected their own emperor; first it was Mark, soon killed by the soldiers, after him Gratian, and then Constantine. In 407, Constantine left Britain with the Roman legions and went to Gaul, where he stayed for four years. In any case, this time the legions did not return to Britain, and the Britons organized self-government to protect against barbarian raids. The Britons considered themselves Romans and as early as 446 turned to the Roman commander Aetius for help. The last period in the history of Roman Britain is known mainly from archeology; surviving Roman fortresses, roads, temples in cities, the remains of villas, votive altars, tomb inscriptions (mostly Latin) speak of it. Most often, temples, inscriptions and altars are Roman (pagan), but sometimes there are altars to gods with Celtic names. There are few traces of Christianity, although sometimes Christian symbols and inscriptions are found. Famous Christian basilica in Silchester. There is no information about the date of the Christianization of Britain under the Romans. 8th century historian The Venerable Bede in this connection speaks of the year 180 and of King Lucius of the Britons; there is vague information about the protomartyr Saint Alban, who suffered under Diocletian. But in general one can think that Christianity spread to Britain in the third century, although much of the history of its spread remains obscure.

Summing up, we can say that Britain under the Romans was part of the Roman civilized world, if, of course, we talk about the Romanized part of Britain and take into account the different degrees of Romanization of different parts of Britain and especially the different degrees of Romanization of urban and rural residents, peasants, nobility, etc. If we talk about the majority of the population of the country, then we have to admit that the country has completely retained its Celtic foundation and Romanization was of a rather superficial nature, which was clearly revealed after the departure of the Roman legions. After 407, Roman customs continued for some time, the sense of belonging to the empire did not completely disappear even in the sixth century; Roman names are often found, a number of Latin words entered the language of the Britons. However, the duration and strength of Roman influence was prevented by the Celtic revival, and from the middle of the 5th century. - Anglo-Saxon conquest.

The so-called Celtic revival was caused by the fact that from 407 Romanized Britain was cut off from Rome. Roman colonists hurried to leave Britain after the legions. Romanized Britain remained in a purely Celtic environment: the Celts lived in Cornwall, Ireland, in the north of the island. In addition, the migration of the Celts from Ireland to Britain began, in particular the migration of the Scots from northern Ireland to Caledonia. Having settled in Caledonia, the Scots were sent from there to Roman Britain. The Celts of Ireland also invaded the southwest of Wales, they also settled in Cornwall. Often they came as enemies of the Romans, not of the Romanized Celts. All this contributed to the oblivion of Roman customs and the restoration of the Celtic way of life. In this regard, it is interesting to point out the Celtic (Gaelic) Ogham 1 inscription dating back to the 6th century BC. and found in Silchester. But the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon conquest, which fell upon Romanized Britain, especially contributed to the oblivion of everything Roman and the revival of everything Celtic. Romanized Celts were exterminated, enslaved, and some of them went to the continent, to the north and west of Britain. Some part of the Celtic nobility tried to maintain Roman traditions, but the Celtic element took over, and the Roman tradition was actually lost at the beginning of the 6th century.

After the departure of the Romans in 407, the Celts of Roman Britain were effectively left to their own devices for half a century. This was the time when the Celtic nobility strengthened, adopting Roman methods of farming with the help of the labor of slaves, who were also Celts, and columns or peasants, whose position was close to that of the columns. The Celtic nobility began to turn into land magnates, fighting for land and slaves. This struggle led to bitter feuds between the Celtic land magnates, especially between the descendants of the Celtic military leaders and the kings of various tribes. The strife took on a particularly violent character due to the absence of any central authority that could check the rival magnates. In the midst of these strife in Britain, the squads of the Angles and Saxons fell upon.