Letters
The Roman Invasion
Dear Editors,
May I add something to Alan Ward's very useful discussion of the Claudian invasion of AD 43 in the Winter 2000/1 issue?
A long shot is that at least some of the Roman fleet may have made for the harbour north of present day Faversham. This does not exist today, because of land reclamation undertaken in medieval and modern times but in Roman times, at least at high water, would have provided a large, sheltered anchorage in the area around Thorn Creek, between what are now Faversham, Nagden and Goodnestone. This was probably better protected from the elements than its counterpart at Richborough.
Though the voyage ('east to west' along the North Kent Coast, once the Wantsum or North Foreland had been negotiated) would have been longer than to Richborough, it might have enabled troops to land just as soon, or sooner, since marching time would have been saved - and there was as yet no Roman road linking Richborough with Canterbury and further west.
The groups might have 'met no resistance' because the harbour was quite well concealed and this would have given the native inhabitants a sense of security. (Faversham itself, though an important port in medieval times, seems never to have been walled, presumably because its harbour was more hidden from view than those of ports like Sandwich and Rye).
The invaders might have been 'driven back in their course' by the Thames/ Swale tide. If Bigbury was a force to be reckoned with, they would have cut it off. If the marching camp which Paul Wilkinson thinks existed at Judd Folly Hill (probably at or near the small Roman town of Durolevum) has earthworks dating from the early Claudian period it could have been one of the first, or even the first, to be established, just a couple of miles from the landing point.
Then Nagden Bump, at the NW tip of the Nagden promontory, might have been raised for an early beacon soon after the invasion. It was destroyed after the 1953 floods but we know that it was man-made, not a natural outcrop of London Clay, and too big to have been built as a sheep refuge.
Worth a moment's thought anyway?
Arthur Percival, MBE MA DLitt FSA
Honourary Director
Faversham Society
The Roman Invasion
Dear Editors,
As one who has spent two years researching the question of where the Roman invasion task force landed in A.D. 43, I was very interested in Alan Ward's article in the Winter 2000/2001 Newsletter and I should like to offer some comments on it.
Mr Ward's approach is to stress the uncertainty and ambiguity of both the documentary and archaeological evidence. While it is true that the ancient accounts, chiefly Dio Cassius and Suetonius, are garbled and often less than specific, nevertheless they are not always as ambiguous as he suggests. Similarly a rigorous interpretation of the archaeological (and topographical) evidence can lead to conclusions which are quite unambiguous.
For example, Mr Ward repeats a suggestion, first made, it seems, by John Hind, that Richborough might not have been a safe harbour and that the Wantsum was subject to treacherous tidal flows. I made an analysis of tidal differentials influencing the flows in the Wantsum, comparing them with those affecting two channels which exist today and whose tidal flows are known, the Swale and the Menai Strait. This shows that the tidal flows in the Wantsum were moderate, of a similar order to those in the Swale rather than the Menai Strait. If anything they were probably weaker than in the Swale. Unlike the Menai Strait, known for its treacherous currents, the Swale can in no way be regarded as a difficult waterway. As to the shelter offered by the Wantsum, the anchorage close to Richborough was in the lee of the high ground of mainland Kent and Thanet from winds in all directions except the east. From the east the anchorage was protected by the long spit running south from Thanet, known as the Stonar Bank. There can be no realistic doubt about the security of the anchorage offered by Richborough.
Again Mr Ward suggests that a voyage by a Roman invasion fleet to Sussex from Boulogne might have taken twenty-four hours, as opposed to twelve from Boulogne to East Kent. Julius Caesar records the times of three of his passages to a landing point in the Deal/Walmer area as approximately sixteen hours, as approximately nine hours and, to the South Foreland, perhaps as little as seven and a quarter hours. So Mr Ward's suggested figure of twelve hours for the Dover Strait crossing is not unreasonable. It must, however, be remembered that these passages of Caesar's would have had considerable assistance from the tidal streams flowing at up to two knots through the Strait.
However, because of its greater length such assistance from the tide would not have been available for a passage from Boulogne to the Solent. What might initially be gained from a favourable stream would be lost from an unfavourable stream when the tide turned. I undertook a detailed analysis of the likely performance of the ships available to the Romans and of the tidal and meteorological environment of a passage from Boulogne to the Solent. This suggests that the time required for the passage would be much longer than the twenty-four hours proposed by Mr Ward. An important consideration is that this was a fleet operation, involving perhaps more than a thousand ships (or a third of that number if the invasion passage was in three waves). For a whole variety of reasons fleets travel much more slowly than single ships and it is difficult to see that the passage to the Solent could have taken less than two and a half to three days. As an exercise in naval logistics it would pose a considerably greater challenge than a Dover Strait crossing.
Turning now to the documentary evidence, there can be no real doubt that Dio's Berikos is the Verica of the British coins. The evidence of the Slavonic alphabet is that by the tenth century the Greek letter 'beta' had the same phonetic value as the 'v' of modern Romance languages. The strong likelihood, therefore, is that in Dio's time 'beta' had the same value as Latin 'v'.
Similarly, there is little ambiguity in Dio's account of the organisation of the invasion fleet 'in threes' and the reason for it, namely to avoid congestion at the invasion beachhead. It is true that confusion has been caused by translations which variously offer the reason as 'to avoid being hampered in landing' or 'to avoid having an opposed landing'. However, there is no confusion in Dio's Greek text; the word he uses means to 'hamper' or 'hinder', not to 'oppose'. Moreover, nothing in Dio's account requires us to believe that there were three disembarkation points, rather than the one that logic and logistics would suggest as the optimum. What Dio is saying is that the invasion force of four legions and supporting units disembarked in three consecutive waves because if they all attempted to land at the same time there would have been an unacceptable traffic jam at the beachhead.
And again there is no ambiguity in Dio's statement that the direction in which the invasion fleet was headed, when it had been 'driven back in its course', was east to west, even if we argue about its implications. But it is not the powerful argument for a landing in West Sussex that some would believe. There is a very close parallel with Caesar's account of his passage to East Kent in 54 B.C. In Caesar's case the wind failed overnight and the fleet drifted offshore with a north-east going tide. At dawn, they saw the coast of Britain 'afar on the port side'. Their course, like that of Aulus Plautius's fleet, then lay east to west.
I have just finished writing up my research thesis. My approach has been to use the resources of maritime archaeology and allied disciplines to ask what constraints would have influenced the naval strategy of the cross-Channel operation of A.D. 43. Others will make their own judgement of my research, but in my view it amounts to a strong case refuting the hypothesis of a landing in the Solent.
Gerald Grainge
Finglesham, Nr Deal
Leland L Duncan's Notebooks
Dear Editors,
I have attempted to construct a website on which people can access the transcripts of Leland L Duncan's notebooks recording M.I.'s from various churchyards throughout Kent from the early 1880's to 1923.
The address is:
http://www.btinternet.com/~archaeologyandlocalhistory/
I would welcome any constructive criticism or suggestions.
Ted Connell
Kingsgate (Thanet)
Dear Newsletter Editor,
I would like to draw your attention to the two articles by me on Kingsgate (Thanet) which have appeared in the latest issues of Follies magazine which may be of interest to your Society. As research goes on there is still new material turning up and I would be very interested to know if any of your members have information which they would be willing to share with me. I have already been advised of a few people with old pictures or have associations with the area and I am in the process of contacting them. The various local libraries and archives have been of great help and trawling through the Holland correspondence at the British Library has been most rewarding. With the assistance of Diana Reynall I am also trying to piece together a more accurate account of the grotto at Margate so if anybody has leads or contacts for that they would be much appreciated.
Mike Cousins
Co-Director The Folly Fellowship