Featured Augusti & Caesars who campaigned in Britain

General note:

For anyone who is just starting to research or read about the various Campaigns conducted by Augusti and Caesars in Britain I strongly recommend ……………



It can be purchased very inexpensively ($2.99 at present) as a Kindle read through Amazon - which I find to be a great way to access it for information and research on my iPad.

It may be the only reference book you ever need on this subject.

I particularly like the coverage of the Claudius Campaign to subjugate and add Britain to the Roman Empire. I learned a great deal about that Campaign that was new to me, or cast in a different light (especially the exploits of Vespasian).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Please read the thread/post today by Curtis Clay titled “C. Clay’s suggested chronology for the Severan campaigns in Scotland” and give me your reaction to it.

 

Hi @jamesicus,
I've read this before in the original paper. It concludes with:
"There is no obvious way to reconcile these conflicting dates. Even if we could invent some explanation whereby Severus reduced (for some reason) the number of his salutations, we would still have the problem of the inconsistency of the diplomas and the medallions. The particular problem is that both sets of titles emanate from (different parts, no doubt, of) the official bureaucracy at Rome. It is conceivable that new evidence will turn up one day to help with both problems. All we can say at the moment is that, for Caracalla, all the diplomas, medallions, and inscriptions are consistent in according him a second salutation in 207. And it is hard to avoid the conclusion that, apart from this, everyone was unclear about the numbering of Septimius’ salutations."

My thoughts on it are:

1. I'm not qualified to challenge either the data or the arguments that either Andrew Burnett or Curtis made.
2. I wasn't impressed with Andrew Burnett's paper. He may have had some valid points in that paper, but he had hidden them well; I certainly couldn't find them. If I remember correctly he was pushing the theory that Caracalla won a secret war in Parthia that no one bothered to write anything down about or celebrate on coin. It doesn't seem to be in Caracalla's character to keep that kind of thing quiet, especially as he minted coins celebrating his defeat of the Parthians when he was only a boy. I also struggle with the idea that on the eve of the biggest, most glory giving campaign he could have taken part in, he would have headed to the furthest away point in the empire he could have gone to to fight a minor war with people he had already defeated
3. I will generally accept Curtis' conclusions unless I have evidence or reason to doubt them. That hasn't happened yet, but I'm leaving that door open

So on balance, if @curtislclay says they accepted acclamations in late 209 AD then I will go along with that. The problem is that I'm not sure it tells us much. The outcome of the war was always going to be a Roman win, and it would have taken time to get the order from York to Rome to mint the coins, so it's probable that they declared themselves victorious in 209, possibly in anticipation of the event. Whether the war ended then, carried over into early 210 AD for some general mopping up, or carried over into early 210 AD because it took longer than expected (perhaps bad winter weather), I don't know. What I am fairly confident of is that there is no way Caracalla and Geta hung around in York for the first half of 210 just for fun, so something was still going on. Elliot doesn't address this gap in the timeline. My main quibble with Elliot's timeline is the start. Nothing is done in 208 AD, and *everything* happens in 209 AD. Reed has them moving North and securing as far as Fife in 208 AD which makes more sense to me.

 

I mostly agree with everything you say, @DCCR (except for the bit relating to Andrew Burnett's paper, for I have not read it), and I am not just buttering you up. I appreciate the amount of time and effort you have devoted to this - you are far ahead of me in understanding the timeline of the campaign (as is Curtis Clay of course). I
somewhat agree with your observation: “ …………… My main quibble with Elliot's timeline is the start. Nothing is done in 208 AD, and *everything* happens in 209 AD. Reed has them moving North and securing as far as Fife in 208 AD which makes more sense to me …………… “. [EDITED]: On re-reading that part, I think Septimius found out that there was going to be a lot more preparation required than he had anticipated before they could take to the field in 208 - and that led to a good bit of delay before the field operations got underway. [END EDIT]

My reading speed has slowed down considerably (I fall asleep while reading quite often these days) but I will keep plugging away.

James

 

Much worn iconic coin issued by Septimius Severus to celebrate and commemorate his Victory over Britain resulting from his Scotland campaign.


Septimius Severus, Sestertius, RIC IV, Rome No. 796, AD 210

Obverse depiction: Laureate bust of Septimius Severus facing right

Obverse Inscription: L SEPT SEVERVS PIVS AVG

Reverse depiction: Two Victories, winged, draped, standing left and right, facing each other and fixing a shield to a palm tree, at the foot of which are two seated British captives (Picts?)

Reverse Inscription: P M TR P XVIII COS III P P - S C in exergue

I love this coin, but I hope someone will post one in better condition. Maybe a No. 818 which is the same as this except it has VICTORIAE BRITTANNICAE as the Reverse legend.

 

Here are two better depictions of Claudius than the earlier ones I used here:


Sestertius, RIC Vol. I, Rome, No. 112, 50-54AD (36mm, 28.2gm)

Obverse depiction: Claudius, bare neck laureate bust, facing right

Inscription: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG PM TRP IMP PP

Reverse depiction: Civic Oak Wreath

Inscription in four lines:

EX SC
P P
OB CIVES
SERVATOS

(within Civic wreath)



RIC Vol. I, CLAUDIUS, SESTERTIUS, Rome, No. 99 41-50 AD, (36mm, 25.3gm)

Obverse depiction: Claudius, bare neck laureate bust, facing right

Inscription clockwise from bottom: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG PM TRP IMP

Reverse depiction: Personification of Spes holding flower in right hand and demurely raising skirt with left hand

Inscription clockwise from bottom: SPES AVGVSTA - S C (exergue)

 

Carausius & Allectus - Usurper Augusti of Secessionist Britain - updated coin pics showing titulature and emphasizing peace:

Example coin: RIC V (2), Carausius, Antoninianus, No. 475:


IMP C CARAVSIVS PF AVG .............................. PA - X - AVG | S ..... P (Pax standing facing left)

Draped, radiate, bust
London Mint.
3.9 gm.


Example coin: RIC V (2), Allectus, Antoninianus, No. 33:


IMP C ALLECTVS PF AVG ................... PA - X - AVG ..... S .... A (Pax
standing facing left)
M L in reverse exergue.

Cuirassed, radiate, bust
London mint
5.1 gm.

 

Hi @jamesicus ,
what part of the book had this information? I can understand that the engineering effort involved in building causeways, etc, may have required time that wasn't originally planned for, but that could only be done in the field. The route north should have been navigatable as far as Cramond, so it could only be the new route north via Fife and then beyond the Tay that should have required this level of work.

If there's another reason for delaying the start of field operations until 209 AD then I missed that in the book.

Cheers
David

 

Regarding Septimius' later acclamations as imperator, Andrew Burnett concluded, as DCCR states above,

"All we can say at the moment is that, for Caracalla, all the diplomas, medallions, and inscriptions are consistent in according him a second salutation in 207. And it is hard to avoid the conclusion that, apart from this, everyone was unclear about the numbering of Septimius’ salutations."

But my own conclusions are quite different. First, there is no consistency about Caracalla becoming IMP II in 207. Were that the case, then Septimius would certainly have become IMP XII at the same time, since acclamations were always shared by joint Augusti. But the PROF AVGG medallion shows that Septimius was still IMP XI in 208, therefore Caracalla was only IMP at the same time, so clearly cannot have become IMP II a year earlier, in 207.

Second, Andrew B. postulates general confusion about the correct numbering of Septimius and Caracalla's salutations towards the end of their joint reign, yet the coins and medallions of the mint of Rome, surely our most reliable source, show no confusion at all. Septimius' new bronze medallion, though unfortunately without tribunician number, shows that Septimius had become IMP XII before his death in 211, implying a simultaneous IMP II for Caracalla while Septimius was still alive. This conclusion is confirmed by the two medallions calling Caracalla IMP II but not yet BRIT (mid-210 on), and in combination with reverse types of 210, and by Caracalla's sole-reign bronze coins still calling him IMP II in 213. The only question the coins leave open is, exactly when did Septimius' IMP XII and Caracalla's IMP II occur, in 208 some time after 1 Jan., in 209, or in 210 before the emperors assumed the title BRIT about half way through that year?

 

Given this time frame, it must seem very likely that Septimius and Caracalla's last official imperatorial acclamation was accorded for their British victory, surely the major Roman military action of those years, and the only one that was led by the emperors themselves. It would seem possible that Geta was made Augustus in connection with this victory and acclamation, given the parallel that Septimius made Caracalla Augustus and Geta Caesar when he captured Ctesiphon and became IMP XI in 198. That would mean that Septimius reached his truce with the Caledonians, presumably the victory that occasioned his IMP XII, in c. fall 209, when Geta became Augustus: certainly, if correct, a very important signpost for the chronology of Septimius' British expedition.

I am not particularly bothered by the appearance in a number of inscriptions or military diplomas of IMP XIII for Septimius and IMP III or even IIII for Caracalla before his father's death. If not mere errors, these high numbers could reflect minor victories by legates that were indeed commemorated by an imperial salutation, which was not however accepted as valid by the emperors.

 

My apologies for deserting this topic for some time. I became very much involved in investigating a Bastien intermediate Coin and that has consumed a considerable amount of my time and energy. I have had to face reality - my age, medical condition and the fact that I have now endured several months of home quarantine has sapped my energy and curtailed my writing ability, considerably. I will contribute here from time to time, however.