Caesar’s warriors, in the first Roman expedition to Britain, wore shirts of mail, interlocking iron rings, which originated from the Celts they fought against. The difference was that Roman factories could equip every soldier with a mail shirt, whereas Celtic craftsmanship produced mail shirts only for the nobility who could afford it. Mail armour was very popular, modern reconstructions showing that a mail shirt follows the shape of the body and thus allows the wearer to take deeper breaths and wear it for longer without exhaustion than plate armour. It is also, essentially, self-cleaning, in that mail rings rub against each other, removing rust and dirt with friction. The main disadvantage of mail is that it is vulnerable to piercing weapons such as arrows; thick padding may have been worn beneath the mail to counter this.
Reconstructed Roman helmet of the Coolus type of the 1st century BC. Said to be inspired by Celtic helmets, it possesses both the cheekguards and neckguard incorporated in later designs. [Graham Sumner]
Because the Roman army has a justifiable reputation for order and discipline, it is presumed that Roman soldiers all wore the same armour and fought with the same weapons. Recent research reveals that this was not true. Mail and plate armour were worn side by side, as many soldiers inherited or bought armour from previous generations of soldiers. Many different nationalities served in the Roman imperial army and they frequently brought their own local styles of dress and fighting with them. This might include warriors in Egypt wearing armour made out of crocodile or hippopotamus hide, or warriors from the East wearing suits of scale armour that made them look like metallic pine-cones! Then there were the measures designed by individual warriors to protect their armour or make the work of campaigning a little less uncomfortable, such as leather rags wrapped around armour and helmets, linen or woollen tubes tied on to arms, even goose feather-filled cushions worn over saddles by cavalrymen. Sweat posed one of the greatest problems on campaign as it could rust armour in a day or disintegrate leather straps so that plates just fell off. This perhaps explains why Roman soldiers preferred to fight with bare legs, thus reducing the build-up of heat beneath their body armour.
Recreated Celtic battle group. With large oval painted wooden shields held in front of them, this group of Celtic warriors is on the verge of launching a terrifying charge which they hope will break the enemy’s spirit before contact is made. The Celts were renowned for this aggressive form of warfare, but if an enemy stood its ground, as the Romans did, secure in their discipline and training, then the combat would be much more difficult. [Philipp Elliot-Wright/English Heritage]
Recreated Roman legionary of the later 1st century AD. He wears the plate armour or lorica segmentata usually associated with Roman soldiers, as well as the rectangular shield. He carries both a sword and a javelin or pilum. His iron and bronze helmet is of the later Imperial type with cheekguards and a flared neckguard. The metal apron hanging from the belt is characteristic of Roman soldiers but its purpose is uncertain. It appears ornamental, although more substantial versions seem designed to protect the thighs without restricting movement. [Graham Sumner]
Vindolanda, near Hadrian’s Wall, was a military base for the Roman soldiers patrolling the great northern frontier. Many everyday objects have been found there, including leather shoes bearing the stamp of their maker. [Skyscan Balloon Photography]
Caesar led a major raid on Celtic Britain in 54 BC, but it was not until AD 43 that the Romans under the Emperor Claudius undertook an invasion of Britain that would lead to its absorption into the Roman Empire. The Romans of the 1st century AD not only had the political advantage of a divided enemy, but a superior military system. The Romans were equipped with iron weapons and armour too, much of it based on Celtic models. They were certainly no better horsemen than the Celts, many of whom in fact served with them as mercenaries, but the Romans had developed a winning form of warfare based on organisation and supply. The Romans took the long view in making war. The Celts expected to win or lose in one furious combat, charging on foot or on horse with frightening shouts and yells intended to panic the enemy. The Romans withstood this form of assault through discipline and confidence in their training and weapons; having survived the initial shock, they fought back steadily and surely. Their logistic infrastructure often ensured that they had superior numbers present for the later, decisive battles of a campaign. Celtic armies could not sustain themselves in the field for the same length of time. Moving forward each day into enemy territory, establishing fortified camps and supply routes, the Romans’ military professionalism brought an end to Celtic rule in Britain.
The Roman conquest of Britain began in AD 43 when 50,000 soldiers landed at Richborough in Kent under the command of Aulus Plautius. They defeated the local Celtic warlord Caractacus and crossed the Thames. The Emperor Claudius now joined the Roman Army, Caractacus was defeated for a second time and his capital at Colchester captured. Caractacus fled to Wales while the Romans extended their control over southern England. They measured their victories in captured hillforts, recognising these as the centres of Celtic power. The future Emperor Vespasian took command of operations westwards and the Roman historian Suetonius records that he ‘subjugated two fierce tribes and captured more than twenty hillforts, including the Isle of Wight’. Maiden Castle was one of these hillforts, excavations at the eastern entrance to the site reveal the debris of battle: charred timbers and demolished earthworks. The skeletons of 38 defenders are scarred with sword and arrow cuts, the spine of one warrior being pierced by a ballista bolt.
Massive earthwork walls of Maiden Castle, near Dorchester. One of the most impressive Celtic hilltop forts in Britain, it was captured by the Romans in the middle of the 1st century AD. [Skyscan]
The Romans were highly experienced in the art of siege warfare. The siege of a hillfort often began with the erection of a double line of fortifications surrounding the entire hill so as to cut off the defenders and prevent relief from outside. The Roman lines included palisades of freshly cut timber plus trenches and ramparts, a massive engineering task demanding vast amounts of labour. When the Romans considered the defenders were sufficiently weakened by hunger, they launched an attack on the weak points in the defences using artillery weapons, such as the ballista and catapult, as well as armoured Roman soldiers in their mail and iron strip armour, protecting themselves with large shields held above their heads.
By AD 49, the Romans had reached the Severn and plunged into Wales, forcing Caractacus to flee again, but a northern Celtic tribe, the Brigantes, handed Caractacus over to the Romans in return for an alliance with them against their Celtic enemies. Ten years later, the Romans destroyed the centre of the Druids on the Isle of Anglesey and marched northwards.
In AD 61 Roman rule was imperilled by a major rebellion that culminated in the sack of London and the massacre of its citizens. Boudicca, or Boadicea as she has been called in later history, was the widow of the Celtic king of the Iceni who ruled East Anglia. Roman tax-collectors ransacked the dead king’s realm and had Boudicca whipped when she protested; her daughters were raped. With the support of her own and other outraged Celtic tribesmen, Boudicca led a revolt against the Romans, taking advantage of the fact that Paullinus, the Roman Governor, had moved most of his troops to north Wales.
Roman Colchester was the first target of Boudicca’s fury and after a two day battle the settlement was annihilated and its inhabitants