Great to read this. Pro-Roman bias underlies the interpretation of ancient history in the land we now know as Scotland. Romanisation never really go beyond the south of England yet we hear all the time about Roman Britain and its civilising ways - including mass slaughter, rape and enslavement - what not to like?
I liked John Reid's book on the Romans but I felt he let himself down badly when he fully accepted the claim that the battle referred to as Mons Graupius in AD84 was a decisive Roman victory. There is absolutely no evidence for this.
We like to think public relations and associated spin is something we invented, but it was of course a well honed tool of the Romans!
Archaeologists and historians love the Romans because they leave lots of amazing things to dig up right across Europe and because they wrote history books. However, this means that only one side of the story prevails and many professionals succumb to the bias this creates. This is especially pronounced among British archaeologists, an island that ironically Rome failed to conquer because it justified the British Empire where we enslaved, robbed and slaughtered other peoples because we were the 'civilised' ones.
Many academics believe Rome’s Legions were invincible, especially when they came up against barbarian armies. But not always – especially when conditions and terrain were against them. Think Teutoberg Forest, Germany in 9AD or the loss of the 9th legion in northern Britain a generation later.
Mons Graupis, perceived academic wisdom informs us, was a conclusive Roman victory over the Caledonians, in what is now northern Scotland. We know this from the writing of Tacitus, who just happened to be the son-in-law of the Roman commander that day, Agricola.
According to Tacitus, after 4 hard years of campaigning in the north of Britain, Agricola inflicted a crushing defeat on the Caledonians, killing thousands of battle-hardened warriors, almost without losing a single legionnaire.
Despite the lack of any archaeological evidence of any kind, entire books describing Roman battle tactics, unit manoeuvres as the battle ebbed and flowed, and the location of the battle have been written based on the few words of Tacitus.
I would like to respectfully challenge this cosy view by suggesting there was no such victory. To do so I must resort to largely circumstantial evidence that has been largely ignored by esteemed professionals.
1. Why would experienced Caledonian war leaders risk all in a pitched battle after 4 years of sustained campaigning using hit and run tactics? Are academics guilty of underestimating the tactical nous of tribal leaders and their knowledge of Roman strengths and weaknesses?
2. The Caledonians were largely an agrarian society living in small communities, so why risk a pitched battle when there were no centres of wealth to protect?
3. The site has never been located and no archaeological evidence of the battle has ever been found.
4. None of the sites suggested provide any scope for the deployment of chariots as described by Tacitus.
5. Why did the ‘victorious’ Roman army evacuate by sea shortly after the battle (or so it is believed)?
6. Despite the alleged successful subjugation of the Caledonians and Britain, why did Agricola never again hold a civil or military post and die unheralded?
Understandably Tacitus may have been guilty of embellishing the military record of his father-in-law, but what I don’t understand is why the British archaeological establishment have been so keen to accept his account so uncritically.
" but what I don’t understand is why the British archaeological establishment have been so keen to accept his account so uncritically"
Also resorting to speculation can I suggest the following
Money - who funds the British archaeological establishment?
Anti woke - key funders and supporters of said establishment among many supposedly well educated people who object to the re-writing of history eg slavery, colonial exploitation etc
Exceptionalism - many British people of a certain standing believe themselves to be superior, better educated, higher achieving. Can't have the peasant Scots succeeding to defend their land against Roman invasion where England failed and anyway they were better from having the civilising Roman force because they got nice villas and baths
I may be a Wildling or I may have a large chip on my shoulder!
Of course, lack of funds and minimal interest in researching "the frozen north" is a huge part of it. How many millions of £s have been spent on commercial archaeology along the route of the hugely beneficial HS2? Wouldn't it be nice if a decent %age of that were directed to research north of Hadrians Wall? We're doubly damnedas we don't get these huge infrastructure projects or the spin-offs. We don't even have a full LiDAR picture of Scotland, the <50% of area currently covered being mostly at lower elevations for flood prevention. Scotland should be doing so much more, and Trimontium is an excellent example to us all.
I had the privilege of having Jenny Wormald as a tutor for Scottish history. Not only was she inspiring but also forensic and pioneering work on how Scotland was viewed and why the English perspective was wrong.
Her obituary said “ In her approach to the history of early modern Scotland, Jenny Wormald, who has died aged 73, challenged the parochialism of many earlier accounts of the rule of the Stuart kings. She placed the northern kingdom, and the writing of its history, in the European mainstream, and argued that it was in many ways better governed than Tudor England.”
Naturally she was pilloried for this but she instilled in all her students a true understanding that England was another exceptional place whereas Scotland was utterly European.
It’s incredibly disappointing that commentators still view Scotland from an English or London perspective.
Interesting that Mike Russell highlighted this in his book “ Grasping the Thistle “ pointing out that what works for the London/SE England economy most certainly does not work for Scotland.
Great to read this. Pro-Roman bias underlies the interpretation of ancient history in the land we now know as Scotland. Romanisation never really go beyond the south of England yet we hear all the time about Roman Britain and its civilising ways - including mass slaughter, rape and enslavement - what not to like?
I liked John Reid's book on the Romans but I felt he let himself down badly when he fully accepted the claim that the battle referred to as Mons Graupius in AD84 was a decisive Roman victory. There is absolutely no evidence for this.
We like to think public relations and associated spin is something we invented, but it was of course a well honed tool of the Romans!
Archaeologists and historians love the Romans because they leave lots of amazing things to dig up right across Europe and because they wrote history books. However, this means that only one side of the story prevails and many professionals succumb to the bias this creates. This is especially pronounced among British archaeologists, an island that ironically Rome failed to conquer because it justified the British Empire where we enslaved, robbed and slaughtered other peoples because we were the 'civilised' ones.
Many academics believe Rome’s Legions were invincible, especially when they came up against barbarian armies. But not always – especially when conditions and terrain were against them. Think Teutoberg Forest, Germany in 9AD or the loss of the 9th legion in northern Britain a generation later.
Mons Graupis, perceived academic wisdom informs us, was a conclusive Roman victory over the Caledonians, in what is now northern Scotland. We know this from the writing of Tacitus, who just happened to be the son-in-law of the Roman commander that day, Agricola.
According to Tacitus, after 4 hard years of campaigning in the north of Britain, Agricola inflicted a crushing defeat on the Caledonians, killing thousands of battle-hardened warriors, almost without losing a single legionnaire.
Despite the lack of any archaeological evidence of any kind, entire books describing Roman battle tactics, unit manoeuvres as the battle ebbed and flowed, and the location of the battle have been written based on the few words of Tacitus.
I would like to respectfully challenge this cosy view by suggesting there was no such victory. To do so I must resort to largely circumstantial evidence that has been largely ignored by esteemed professionals.
1. Why would experienced Caledonian war leaders risk all in a pitched battle after 4 years of sustained campaigning using hit and run tactics? Are academics guilty of underestimating the tactical nous of tribal leaders and their knowledge of Roman strengths and weaknesses?
2. The Caledonians were largely an agrarian society living in small communities, so why risk a pitched battle when there were no centres of wealth to protect?
3. The site has never been located and no archaeological evidence of the battle has ever been found.
4. None of the sites suggested provide any scope for the deployment of chariots as described by Tacitus.
5. Why did the ‘victorious’ Roman army evacuate by sea shortly after the battle (or so it is believed)?
6. Despite the alleged successful subjugation of the Caledonians and Britain, why did Agricola never again hold a civil or military post and die unheralded?
Understandably Tacitus may have been guilty of embellishing the military record of his father-in-law, but what I don’t understand is why the British archaeological establishment have been so keen to accept his account so uncritically.
Thanks. You make some interesting points. I think there similarities between the way Mons Graupis is described and the battle of Culloden.
Can you write about this please - I am intrigued!
" but what I don’t understand is why the British archaeological establishment have been so keen to accept his account so uncritically"
Also resorting to speculation can I suggest the following
Money - who funds the British archaeological establishment?
Anti woke - key funders and supporters of said establishment among many supposedly well educated people who object to the re-writing of history eg slavery, colonial exploitation etc
Exceptionalism - many British people of a certain standing believe themselves to be superior, better educated, higher achieving. Can't have the peasant Scots succeeding to defend their land against Roman invasion where England failed and anyway they were better from having the civilising Roman force because they got nice villas and baths
I may be a Wildling or I may have a large chip on my shoulder!
Good piece Jackie, I do like your articles
Thank you. Yes many Americans like the Romans too - it’s the Imperial PoV
There's also a lot of very straight roads in the USA ... 🤔 .... just saying.
Of course, lack of funds and minimal interest in researching "the frozen north" is a huge part of it. How many millions of £s have been spent on commercial archaeology along the route of the hugely beneficial HS2? Wouldn't it be nice if a decent %age of that were directed to research north of Hadrians Wall? We're doubly damnedas we don't get these huge infrastructure projects or the spin-offs. We don't even have a full LiDAR picture of Scotland, the <50% of area currently covered being mostly at lower elevations for flood prevention. Scotland should be doing so much more, and Trimontium is an excellent example to us all.
I had the privilege of having Jenny Wormald as a tutor for Scottish history. Not only was she inspiring but also forensic and pioneering work on how Scotland was viewed and why the English perspective was wrong.
Her obituary said “ In her approach to the history of early modern Scotland, Jenny Wormald, who has died aged 73, challenged the parochialism of many earlier accounts of the rule of the Stuart kings. She placed the northern kingdom, and the writing of its history, in the European mainstream, and argued that it was in many ways better governed than Tudor England.”
Naturally she was pilloried for this but she instilled in all her students a true understanding that England was another exceptional place whereas Scotland was utterly European.
It’s incredibly disappointing that commentators still view Scotland from an English or London perspective.
Interesting that Mike Russell highlighted this in his book “ Grasping the Thistle “ pointing out that what works for the London/SE England economy most certainly does not work for Scotland.
Thank you for that. Did she write a book? I’d be interested to read her work.
Many !
Just do a search. There’s a History of Scotland and then James VI and 1 and then her pioneering research.
She’s a great writer and immensely witty.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/6591.Jenny_Wormald
Thanks
The map on that sign is wrong as it says a mile is c. 1.8 km. I wonder what other mistakes they made, that I haven't spotted?
Well spotted!