Leaderboard

This one's an oddity. A series of clips from footage recorded for the original 1937 film version of I Claudius that was never finished. Alex Korda was taking on Hollywood with some success and wanted a Roman epic, so he approached Robert Graves, but the film was very expensive and personality conflicts doomed the production.

The other day I sat down to watch a YouTube video about how Constantine the Great impacted history. Might be interesting. The academic started with a broad description of the Roman Empire, basically claiming that Augustus was an undeclared emperor and pretended that Rome was still a Republic. This is the foundation of the 'Standard Model' of Roman imperial government. I have never heard anything sound so false in all my life. Does that academic seriously expect anyone to believe that Augustus was able to fool the Romans into thinking the Republic was still in place for fifty years? In a society based on tradition and obsessed with politics and debate? Is he seriously suggesting nobody noticed? It may seem suprising that in spite of their vigilant Republicanism many members of the Italian governing class were satisfied by what seems to us a fiction. Yet the Romans, although their intense anxiety to preserve everything good in the past made them instinctively averse to open changes, had a fairly impressive record for modifying their institutions when this was necessary. The World Of Rome (Michael Grant) Okay, so why does the Republic seem like a fiction? There was no actual 'fall of the Republic', it doesn't exist in the Roman sources. It's because people like the idea Rome was ruled by emperors. It's been imposed on education since the Middle Ages based on the revisionist later writings of Roman authors and the experience of dealing with the Graeco-Roman Byzantines. Take Augustus himself. Paterculus gushes in praise and reminds us that Augusts was the saviour of the Republic. Yet five hundred years later Zosimus dismisses Augustus as an absolute monarch who abolished the aristocracy. This reflects changes in Roman culture during the imperial era, not the career of Augustus. But not everyone is so blinded by the Standard Model. The overwhelming importance of tradition in Roman society is a warning for the historian tempted to consider Roman history in terms of turning points and separate periods. Persistent obsession with tradition fosters continuity even within a broad framework of change. In other words, while the terms 'Republic' and 'Principate' suggest separation and change, we should expect continuity, mitigating and to an extent denying this change. It is not only that the Republic conditioned the Principate: it also continued into the Principate - The Legacy of the Republic (David C Braund) from The Roman World (Ed. John Wacher) Also, rather than using the word 'birth', we should perhaps speak of emergence, since the features of the Augustan monarchy that were adopted by its successors took shape gradually, bit by bit, within the Republican institutional edifice. For the Principate was not created ex nihilo, but put slowly into position using existing forms, and following no preconceived plan but, rather, added to and modified according to circumstance... - A History of Rome (Le Glay, Voisin, & Le Bohec) I actually go further. It hasn't escaped my attention that the Romans still referred to their state as SPQR, Senatus Populous Que Romans (Senate and People of Rome) right to the end in the west in 476, which is an arbitrary date based on the takeover launched by Odoacer as he became King of Italy. The Senate may have been functionally powerless in the Dominate (the later Roman imperial period) but they still represented traditional authority, and rather than the imperatores (Victorious Generals) simply admit they had become monarchs, they required senatorial acceptance, awards of privilege, and legitimisation. Why would they need to if Rome was the Empire rather than the Republic? Exactly who were they trying to kid? The facts are startlingly obvious if you set aside the much loved but medieval 'Emperor of Rome'. Rome remained a Republic with evolving leadership. The Polybian hybrid government of aristocratic Senate, democratic people, and executive Magistracy had changed to Dominatal Magistracy with Senatorial acceptance - but it was the same nation state. When Augustus stated in his Res Gestae that he was Princeps Senatus he meant it. That was his day job. Yes, he was particularly powerful, but never absolute, and in any case power alone does not make you a monarch. His powers were based on a series of privileges, titles, and honours, not any existing position in Roman society, these powers given him by the Senate, and as an ambitious man of course he used them. However if you notice young Octavian had been invited into the Senate on the promise he would protect the Republic. He did exactly that. Yes, he profitted personally from doing so - he was an elite Roman, of course he did. Augustus even refers to this success as a statesman as the 'fruit of his labours'. If power wasn't his primary objective, as indeed Aurelius Victor claimed it was, then what was it? A prosperous Republic. There is no other answer that fits.

It's a matter of context. If the Romans are discussing all the peoples who lived on the isles then yes, they are Britons. However, normally they refer to Britons as the tribes within their sphere of influence and specifically name the Caledonians as Pictii (the Painted People) both because they were a barbarian people in opposition to the presence of Rome but also the clear separation in culture.. Always bear in mind that Rome did not classify people according to nation states, it was about region and tribe. Where the Romans didn't know the tribes very well they tended to be more generic, such as the more distant northern tribes referred to as Germani (Spear-man, or 'True Celt')

I defer to the many folks on this site who know this subject (and geography) far better than I. I would assume that the Romans usually thought of the Caledonians as beyond the boundary (and active interest) of the Roman Empire. After the inability to hold on to the gains achieved by the victory at the Battle of Mons Graupius in AD 83/84, the Roman army quickly returned to more settled (and “civilized”) Romanized England. I imagine that Hadrian’s Wall (AD 122) and the briefly-held Antonine Wall (AD 142) best defined for the Romans the demarcation between Roman-friendly Britons and the less Romanized Caledonians. These walls may have been more of a control gate for trade and commerce between north and south than an absolute border. These walls, nevertheless, would have served as psychological barriers between Roman and “barbarian.” Even the later ill-fated incursions back into Scotland by Septimius Severus (AD 208-210) were quickly reversed by his son Caracalla. You may want to contact UNRV Gordopolis who is a Scottish writer and historian about his perspective. https://www.unrv.com/forum/profile/51701-gordopolis/

How did Octavian gain power over Rome? A question asked on Quora.com and my answer is expanded here. Octavian was already powerful, by accident of birth, by becoming the inheritor of Caesar's estate and status, and by forming an illegal army from Caesar's veterans which brought him to the attention of the Senate. They wanted him punished, but Cicero persuaded them the youngster would be useful. At the age of nineteen, on my own initiative and at my own expense, I raised an army by means of which I restored liberty to the republic, which had been oppressed by the tyranny of a faction. For which service the Senate, with complimentary resolutions, enrolled me in its order, in the consulship of Gaius Pansa and Aulus Hirtius, giving me at the same time consular precedence in voting; it also gave me the imperium. As propraetor it ordered me, along with the consuls, "to see that the republic suffered no harm." - Res Gestae (Augustus) Octavian rose to dominance by manipulation of popularity, by acting against Marc Antony whose association with Egypt made him a traitor in the eyes of the Senate and People of Rome, by defeating the Romano-Egyptian threat to Rome, by annexing Egypt by conquest, and by returning the supreme power he had been awarded to defeat Cleopatra to the Roman state, then by a series of intense negotiations with the Senate. But please realise Augustus was not powerful in one title. He held a number of magistracies, priesthoods, and privileges that together added up to some serious influence. He was effectively manager of republican government, but never an emperor despite the popularity of that idea. He retained Egypt as his own personal province where the Senate could not legally go, he had direct influence over regions with military garrisons thanks to his senior imperium (right to command an army), but a third of the empire remained under senatorial oversight. For ten years in succession I was one of the triumvirs for the re-establishment of the constitution. To the day of writing this I have been princeps senatus for forty years. I have been pontifex maximus, augur, a member of the fifteen commissioners for performing sacred rites, one of the seven for sacred feasts, an arval brother, a sodalis Titius, a fetial priest. - Res Gestae (Augustus) Also please note that descriptions of Augustus changed over time. He was regarded as the saviour of the Republic during his day (which to be fair he was only too keen to encourage), but five hundred years later he was being described as an absolute monarch who abolished the aristocracy. Little wonder the Middle Ages decided to call him an Emperor however wrong that was. May it be my privilege to establish the State in a firm and secure position, and reap from that act the fruit that I desire; but only if I may be called the author of the best possible government, and bear with me the hope when I die that the foundations which I have laid for the State will remain unshaken. - Augustus Consul - One of two annually elected senior magistrates of Rome, also originally military commanders of a legion each. Imperator - Victorious General, described by Cassius Dio and Varro. Princeps Senatus - First Senator Propraetor - Former leader Supreme Power - Not defined by anyone but indicates the powers of a Dictator without the title, which had been abolished by Marc Antony after Caesar's death. Triumvir - Member of a council but in Octavian's context, a reformer of the state.

Looks like the figurine at 2m12s in below film. Isn't this from Paestum's Greek rather than Roman period?

The Mother River, strong & swift, bringer of luck... but not always. Read the epic history of the River Danube during the days of the #Roman Empire. https://www.gordondoherty.co.uk/writeblog/the-mother-river?fbclid=IwAR0WLjMEFGjB3gsgbqdPxrjZmHqlq53N-IL7b9X6Wqajc3rPiQSrdxvRrfA

I've put together a blog piece about this legendary figure and the momentous events of the late 4th century AD that changed the course of history: https://www.gordondoherty.co.uk/writeblog/magnus-maximus-hero-or-tyrant Was Magnus Maximus a hero or a villain? In essence, I don't know - he was both loved and hated. Maybe that's the answer - he was human!

"It was an immense slaughter, greater than had ever occurred in any former naval action. Thus the river was filled with dead bodies." - Historia Nova, Zosimus As winter fell in AD 386, the Eastern Roman Empire found itself in a position of delicately-balanced stability. The Gothic War had ended four years prior, thanks to a peace deal that granted the Goths Roman lands in the northern parts of the Diocese of Thracia on which to settle and farm. In return for this, their fighting men were to muster for imperial military service if and when Emperor Theodosius called upon them. This system of gradual cultural integration and laying aside of old grievances was only just beginning to settle into place. So, the last thing Emperor Theodosius needed was for a huge host of erstwhile unknown Goths to descend from the north and appear at the River Danube, demanding entry into the empire. Full article (free, no paywall or anything) here: https://www.gordondoherty.co.uk/writeblog/the-horde-of-odotheus

Here's an interesting video that supports the theory that Augustan Rome had a greater population density than the modern Manhattan borough in New York City. First, one needs to assume that the population at the time of Augustus was 800,000 to 1,200,000. Using the layout of the city of Rome outlined in the Severan Map created in 203-11 AD (known as Forma Urbis Romae), one is able to calculate the area of Rome 24 km2 (Museo della Civilta Romana, Rome, Italy/De Agostini Picture Library/Bridgeman Images) FRAGMENT OF THE FORMA URBIS ROMAE. DATE: A.D. 203–211. MATERIAL: Marble, DIMENSIONS: 26 inches by 23.6 inches. FOUND: Rome, Italy. Using population calculated from records of grain and pork supplied to the city, the video proposes that the population density of Augustan Rome was greater than modern Manhattan. Augustan Rome: 41,500 persons / km2 Manhattan, NYC: 28,000 persons / km2 Hong Kong: 6,300 persons / km2 Even if this is a gross exaggeration, Ancient Rome was incredible for its infrastructure planning and services. The video suggests how the population of Ancient Rome could be so dense: Brief article on the Forma Urbis Romae: https://www.archaeology.org/issues/337-1905/features/7547-maps-rome-forma-urbis-romae

This is something that for me at least makes Roman history come alive, when you can actually point at the map and see where it happened rather than just read a paragraph or two in some obscure text. Silver was a major motive in the Roman Empire, the basis of their economy, and the direct involvement of the legions is noteworthy.

Book news from myself: my latest Roman romp, 𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗔𝗥𝗬: 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗘𝗠𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗢𝗥'𝗦 𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗘𝗟𝗗 will be published on 16th Feb 2023, and is available for pre-order now! "Easier to split the sky, than part a soldier from his blade. 386 AD. The Eastern Roman Empire faces a trident of threats. The Gothic truce grows unstable. The standoff with Persia escalates. And the ambitions of the usurper on the Western throne grow dangerously unchecked. Pavo, a broken veteran of the legions, cares for none of these things. His life is one of pastoral seclusion on his Thracian farm. A life of love, of peace. His wife and young son are his world. Still, every so often, things seen and done in his old life haunt him, like a cold and unwelcome breeze. But that is all they are, echoes of the past… …until the past rises, like a shade, to rip his world and the Roman Empire apart." Blood, steel and high adventure all the way Link to pre-order: https://books2read.com/Legionary9 And here's my newsletter with all the deets: https://mailchi.mp/679b11cc243e/coming-16th-feb-from-gordon-doherty-legionary-the-emperors-shield?fbclid=IwAR3ifn2oLqFR3wzFo2H-874IqskekRVDv74C4QemqVMaCfRoSheT3_0KVe8

A couple of videos to give you a flavour of the story The trailer vid: Me doing a reading from the book (Scottish subtitles ON! 😄😞

This has been suggested often enough but why would anyone involve doddering and stuttering Claudius? He stood little to gain from such a conspiracy ad indeed was lucky not to have been slaughtered in the family purge that followed the assassination of Caligula. The Praetorians had other plans when they found him hiding behind a curtain - he was their ticket to preserving their perks and privileges. So a tense stand-off between the magistrates (who had seized power with the urban cohorts) and the Praetorians (who had seized Claudius) for a day or two. The Senate backed down and had Claudius declared Princeps.

Wow, the famous author Adrian Goldsworthy makes a fantastic interviewee, even with a bit eccentric "er". https://youtu.be/O1kfuUltMDE He draws out all kinds of cultural context to soldiering, including what a posh assignment Britain could offer as a whitecollar admin role due to the locals not being literate enough to do that. Gosh they seemed to live long into retirement; I think the supposedly short lifespans should factor out infant deaths. Another great source is historian Gareth Harney who I cue up talking about the sometimes softer side of Roman slavery, gladiators protected by referees, and the amazing way they showcase the +- possibilities in our culture. He has a fabulous show and tell twitter account at https://twitter.com/search?q=OptimoPrincipi&src=typed_query

It’s good to see that Garrett Ryan (“Toldinstone”) has a podcast. He is one of the best publishers on ancient history on YouTube and now with podcasts.

Here is a wonderful article on Legio V Macedonia, Rome’s longest-documented legio: https://www.heritagedaily.com/2023/01/legio-v-macedonica-the-last-roman-legion/145686 Here’s a more in-depth article on the legion: http://byzantinemilitary.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-last-roman-legion-legio-v-macedonica.html?m=1

Parthia, not Persia, though the region is the same. His motive is discussed by Cassius Dio as being about glory and territorial expansion, although there's been some debate about economic motives that haven't really convinced everyone. Now Dio was always a bit revisionist and critical of the Roman leaders - he refers to them as 'kings by another name' so bear that in mind when considering what he said about Trajan. Parthia had of course been a thorn in the side of Rome for a long time already and possibly Trajan was hoping to resolve the problem by conquest, as indeed he did with Dacia.

The battle of Teutoburg Forrest is remembered for the near total annihilation in AD 9 of Varus and his army consisting of Legions XVII, XVIII, and XIX by Arminius and his alliance of Germanic tribes. This study confirms the base camp and fate of Legion XIX. https://www.heritagedaily.com/2022/12/metallurgical-fingerprint-points-to-lost-roman-legion/145436?fbclid=IwAR2FZgJgoatagfPVH5Q2mXPVL_mF-mk1-KPMV36fSBx_uPxwwY_g3uQmJrM&amp

Sebastianus, observing the indolence and effeminacy both of the tribunes and soldiers, and that all they had been taught was only how to fly, and to have desires more suitable to women than to men, requested no more than two thousand men of his own choice. He well knew the difficulty of commanding a multitude of ill-disciplined dissolute men, and that a small number might more easily be reclaimed from their effeminacy; and, moreover, that it was better to risk a few than all. By these arguments having prevailed upon the emperor, he obtained his desire. He selected, not such as had been trained to cowardice and accustomed to flight, but strong and active men who had lately been taken into the army, and who appeared to him, who was able to judge of men, to be capable of any service. He immediately made trial of each of them, and obviated their defects by continual exercise; bestowing commendations and rewards on all who were obedient, but appearing severe and inexorable to those who neglected their duty. - Nea Historia (Zosimus) So by long unfamiliarity with fighting the Roman soldier was reduced to a cowardly condition. For as to all the arts of life, so especially to the business of war, is sloth fatal. It is of the greatest importance for soldiers to experience the ups and downs of fortune, and to take strenuous exercise in the open. The most demoralised of all, however, were the Syrian soldiers, mutinous, disobedient,seldom with their units, straying in front of their prescribed posts, roving about like scouts, tipsy from one noon to the next, unused to carrying even their arms. - Letter to Lucius Verus (Fronto) Causes of the Decay of the Legion - The name of the legion remains indeed to this day in our armies, but its strength and substance are gone, since by the neglect of our predecessors, honours and preferments, which were formerly the recompenses of merit and long services, were to be attained only by interest and favour. Care is no longer taken to replace the soldiers, who after serving their full time, have received their discharges. The vacancies continually happening by sickness, discharges, desertion and various other casualties, if not supplied every year or even every month, must in time disable the most numerous army. Another cause of the weakness of our legions is that in them the soldiers find the duty hard, the arms heavy, the rewards distant and the discipline severe. To avoid these inconveniences, the young men enlist in the auxiliaries, where the service is less laborious and they have reason to expect more speedy recompenses. - De Re Militaris (Vegetius) Now in the place of Valens, his uncle, the Emperor Gratian established Theodosius the Spaniard in the Eastern Empire. Military discipline was soon restored to a high level, and the Goth, perceiving that the cowardice and sloth of former princes was ended, became afraid. For the Emperor was famed alike for his acuteness and discretion. By stern commands and by generosity and kindness he encouraged a demoralized army to deeds of daring. - Res Gaetica (Jordanes) Dr Adrian Goldsworthy has commented on the strengths of the late Roman soldiery, regarding their ability in 'low level warfare' (raids and ambushes) but the skills of large set=-piece battles had withered along with the Centurionate.

The reason for the European renaissance lies beyond Europe No it most certainly does not. It emerges from the Republic that encouraged free thinking in Florence, Italy, in the 16th century. Eastern advances were ignored by the West for the most part.

I love the tune, also:

There isn't much evidence for military protocol in the Roman legions. Legionaries weren't called 'soldiers' before Augustus (they were referred to as 'Brothers'). Specific ranks would be a little tedious so broad categories are likely, Centurion, Tribune, Legate. What you will have to become aware of is that the Romans may well have not used analogous behaviour to modern armies (a typical Hollywood or literary ploy). Saluting has been debated for a lo/ng time and most people feel comfortable with a modernesque protocol, but the sources do not mention saluting outside of honouring a commander as opposed to recognising his superior rank as we do. What this means is that ordinary salutes may not have happened, but that soldiers who approved of their commanders may have deliberately or spontaneously saluted them as something. Incidentially using the word 'Domine' might well have been seen as 'licking the backside'. In fact, such language does exist in letters recovered from Vindolanda. It does not refer to rank, but names the recipient as 'Master'. That's a very subordinate form of phrasing because it infers that you are indentured to the recipient in some way. Legionaries swore an oath of obedience - this was necessary because obedience to another man is the same as slavery, and Roman soldiers would not tolerate such associations. They were free citizens, soldiers or not. The upshot of this is that I am thinking in terms of names being more contextual than actual rank titles in many cases. Remember that in the legions, loyalty is fixed toward individuals rather than offices.

I had to do an essay for college on greco-roman writings on the celts. and here it is... How useful are the Greco-Roman sources in determining the truth about life and events in Iron Age Britain?History is by no means set in stone. Though we can piece together much of the past’s events through the use of archaeology and interpretation of historical documents, we can never be truly sure of what really happened. I believe that this can definitely apply to Iron Age Britain; I say this for a variety of reasons. For instance, archaeological evidence can only inform us about the basic details of Celtic life—e.g. distribution of communities, appearance of houses and farming activities. As this is apparent, the only other source of information is contemporary literature. Though the Celtic inhabitants of Britain (Britons) were an illiterate civilization; most Celts recorded information by memory rather than by use of script. So the only other source of contemporary literature would be from nearby Greco-Roman societies. However, there are many flaws in these sources. In this essay I aim to question the validity of Greco-Roman sources in determining the truth about life in Iron Age Britain. I will begin by looking at one of the earliest accounts of the British people from around 300BC. At this point in time, ideas about Britain were very vague and as Britain was outside the Sea of Ocean (the assumed border of the known world) it was often portrayed as a fantasyland where mythological beasts and gods roamed. At this time only a handful of people had explored Britain, namely the explorer Pythias of Massilia, who recorded his fantastic adventures around the North Sea in a book; though there is now no surviving copy of this written text. However, over the years ideas about Britain began to become more realistic. This could be due to possible trade links between the Britons and the Greeks: Greek pottery dating from 220BC was found in the South West of England. But these Greco-Roman sources were to become clearer in the years 55-54BC upon the two invasions of the ambitious Roman general & politician, Giaus Julius Caesar. Even though Caesar’s invasion was an unsuccessful one, he stayed on the island long enough to write (in his book, The Gallic War) an accurate ethnographical account of the customs, appearance and military tactics of the indigenous Britons. For instance, he mentions that ‘All Britons dye themselves with woad, which produces a blue colour and as a result their appearance in battle is all the more daunting. They wear their hair long and shave all their bodies with the exception of their heads and upper lips…’ As well as writing about the appearance of the Britons Caesar enlightens us with a description of their traditions and values: ‘They have a taboo against eating hare, chicken and goose…Wives are shared between groups of up to twelve men, especially between brothers and between fathers and sons.’ However, these descriptions may have been exaggerated; Caesar had many reasons for doing this. For example, when Caesar wrote his book he wanted it to sell. So in order to make ‘The Gallic War’ a bestseller back in Rome this would mean that he would have to leave out the mundane elements of Celtic life (e.g. agricultural activities) and would have to emphasize the weird and wonderful (e.g. the sharing of women). Furthermore Caesar was always trying to out do his rivals; the hero of the east, Pompey and the vanquisher of Spartacus, Crassus. Therefore to increase his reputation as a general and add to his presidge, Caesar would have depicted the British Celts as a formidable enemy. Another fault in Caesar’s writing was that he had a tendency to make sweeping generalisations about the natives of Britain. For instance, he stereotypes the ‘…people in the interior…’ as being more barbarous than the people of the South; this is odd because Caesar never really ventured as far as the British interior. However, despite these inaccuracies and exaggerations I personally believe that Caesar’s portrays an accurate description of Celtic Britain. I say this because unlike the contemporary writers before him (with the exception of Pythias), he was the only one of them to actually set foot on British soil. Also Archaeology (e.g. excavations of British Hill forts) can support Caesar’s descriptions of Celtic society. After Julius Caesar’s invasion of Britain, many other contemporary writers began to produce similar descriptions of the indigenous population of Britain. A good example of one of these writers was the Geographer Strabo (who was writing around the late BC-early AD period). In his works about Britain he provides us with an ethnographical description of the Britons. He writes a variety of information on their appearance: ‘…the men (of Britain) are taller than the Gauls, not so blond, and of looser build’. There customs: ‘Their customs are in some respects like those of the Celts (Gauls), in other respects simpler and more barbaric…’ And their political life: ‘…they are ruled by chieftains. Another one of these writers was the Historian Diodorus Siculus, who like Strabo heavily based his depictions of the Britons on Julius Caesar’s writing. As these two writers borrowed so heavily from Caesar’s work, I personally believe that they do not actually provide us with any new information on the life of the British Celts; they merely just re-hash previous knowledge. Since this is apparent their writings possess the same faults that Caesar’s did. Furthermore, these writers never visited Britain, nor did they have any direct links with the island. But having said this, they were writing at a time when Britain was opening up to trade diplomatic links with Rome (it is mentioned in Emperor Augustus’ Res Gestae that two British Kings paid homage to him), so the writers at this time may have had know more about Celtic Britain then I have given them credit for. In 44AD Britain faced another Roman invasion, this time under Emperor Claudius. Unlike Caesar’s invasion, the 44AD conquest was incredibly successful and Britain soon became a Roman province. So with most of Britain in the hands of Rome, knowledge of the island should have increased. The early book (that survives) which informs us about the Britons after Claudius’ invasion is Tacitus’ ‘Agricola’, written around 100AD. In this book Tacitus informs us about the life of his father-in-law and successful governor of Britain Gnaeus Julius Agricola. Though Agricola is the main focus of attention, Tacitus writes a small section on the inhabitants of Britain, though he mainly concentrates on the way in which the Britons fight. He mentions details such as the fact that they use ‘…battle chariots…’ which archaeology has proved to be correct. Tacitus also mentions that their armies are unorganised and divided, and ‘…do not plan joint operations…’ with other tribes. The works of Tacitus seem to be correct as he was able to use his father-in-law as a primary source. However, even though Tacitus was able to ask Agricola about the Celtic way of life, there are many errors in his work. For instance, Tacitus was a very proud man and never liked to admit he was wrong. So when he did not know a certain fact, he had a tendency to invent falsehoods. Furthermore, in some parts of ‘Agricola’, Tacitus contradicts a lot of what Caesar wrote in ‘The Gallic War’. For example, Tacitus writes that ‘…some tribes fight in chariots. The nobleman is the diver; his retainers do the fighting…’ Caesar on the other hand states that it was actually the nobleman who did the fighting, and as Caesar had actually been to Britain, I personally believe that he was correct. One of the only other sources that give an account of the Celts in Britain was written around 300AD by Dio Cassius. However this account seems to be incredibly inaccurate. This is because he depicts the Britons as simple barbarians who ‘…live off bark and roots’ and ‘…live in tents…’ whereas at this point in time Britain had been a Roman province for almost 250 years and most Celts were living a very Roman way of life. But how was Dio Cassius supposed to know…he never went to Britain! Although these contemporary sources paint a fairly accurate picture of Celtic Britain, they only tell us half the story. This is because all the surviving sources about Celtic Britain were written by Greco-Romans, not the Britons themselves. As we only get an idea about the Celtic life style though Greco-Roman writers, their accounts have to be taken with a pinch of salt. This is due to the fact that most Greco-Roman held particular prejudices against their Celtic neighbours. For instance, the philosopher and naturalist Aristotle once stated that man is a ‘Political animal’ in other words it was in mans nature to live in towns and cities. As this was a popular view and it was so ingrained in Greco-Roman writers, many of them just dismissed the Britons as sub-human barbarians just because of the fact that they did not live in pertinent towns. However, no all writers viewed the Celts as mindless barbarians. Some writers had a slight admiration of the Celtic lifestyle. For example, the Greek philosopher Posidonius once declared that ‘Barbarism was mans’ natural state’, which basically means that living simple lives away from the corruptions of the big cities is a very admirable way to live. But the vast majority of the Greco-Romans believed that the Britons were barbarous. So the fact that the Greco-Roman writers were judging the British Celts by the standards of their own culture is a reason why these sources are not completely trustworthy. Other than cultural reasons we cannot completely trust the sources just because of the style in which they are written. This is mainly because not a single Greco-Roman book that souly focuses on Britain survives. Most of are information about Iron age Britain comes from books where the country is mentioned in passing. And the vast majority of surviving texts on Celtic Britain were mainly about political and military history (the actions of King, Queens and armies) rather than social history (the action of ordinary people), so we cannot extract the full truth about the Celtic lifestyle from these sources. As well as this the writers also had a predisposition to exaggerate and make generalisations about the Celts, particularly if they want to sell their book. They often only just emphasised the violent and bizarre aspects (e.g. human sacrifice) of the Britons, as this was the stuff that sold books. So though their books were highly entertaining, they were not completely reliable. Finally archaeology has proved many of the sources wrong. For example, Pomponius Mela (an obscure source) mentions that the Britons used scythed chariots in battle. This was thought to be true until recent excavations proved that this was not so. In conclusion to the question, I believe that though these sources depict a fairly accurate picture of Iron Age Britain, they also possess many faults and inaccuracies.