By Edward Tomlinson

Introduction: Why Britain? 

Throughout its history with ancient Rome, Britain experienced great continental influence. Britons interacted with the European mainland through contact with a Roman culture that saw unprecedented development over centuries. As time progressed, Britain’s importance grew. “From [Julius] Caesar onwards, Britain occupied a particular and significant place in the Roman consciousness. The Roman period is a turning point, not so much in the underlying story of man’s settlement of the land of Britain but in the country’s emergence from prehistory into history.”1 The Romans integrated Britain into their way of life and history, which was unique to antiquity. Beforehand, there was seldom contact between the mainland and one of the westernmost areas of Europe. Britain and Rome’s enduring relationship unfolded over the course of half a millennium, starting with Julius Caesar’s invasions of Britain. 

Julius Caesar, primarily through his Gallic Wars, distorted the events of his campaigns to Britain in 55 and 54 B.C.E. He cast a narrative of himself as a conquering Roman general in order to further his ambitions for supreme power in Rome. Observations such as persistent militant resistance by indigenous Britons further emphasized the saga of Caesar’s dynamic leadership as a Roman consul enduring adversity in a foreign land. Such actions allowed Caesar to bolster his own ambition for imperial rule in Rome as the Roman Republic disintegrated. Furthermore, his invasions had a lasting legacy within the Roman psyche. Caesar’s invasions were so infamous that his expeditions would later be copied by succeeding ambitious Roman generals. It was only after such campaigns and increased Roman contact that assimilation began and legionary fortresses such as Inchtuthil were constructed across the island.2 However, during the era of Julius Caesar, Britain was not a place of Roman domination but of opportunity and exploitation. 

The Place for Caesar’s Ambition 

In order to appreciate the importance of Caesar’s invasions of Britain, the dynamic situation of the First Triumvirate at the end of the Roman Republic requires examination. By the 50s B.C.E., the Roman Republic had fallen under the control of the First Triumvirate of Marcus Licinius Crassus, Pompey the Great, and Caesar; the first two obtained consulship in Rome.3 In 58 B.C.E., Caesar was selected as the proconsul of Transalpine Gaul.4 This position provided him an opportunity to refine his power and influence, as he could expand westward and obtain new victories. All lands northwest of Rome, including Gaul and Britain, were available for Caesar to exploit and subsequently use to boost his reputation. Not only would a victory over Gaul be of great significance for Caesar, but also for Rome because of previous interactions. The Gauls had sacked Rome in 390 B.C.E. and the Romans remained fearful of their northern neighbors. Thus, his proconsulship presented the perfect opportunity for Caesar to demonstrate his ability to lead and conquer. From 58–50 B.C.E., Caesar and his legions fought, conquered, and eventually defeated the Gauls.5 This persistence of Caesar’s forces also continued to the foreign island of Britain. 

Caesar’s Gallic Wars describe his campaigns in Gaul and Britain between 58 and 52 B.C.E., especially highlighting his encounters and conflict with the Britons. In fact, internal affairs in Britain gave Caesar the opportunity to invade in 54 B.C.E. in the first place. During the campaigns in Britain, Caesar provides an account of the resistance he faced there, including the Britons’ chariots, weapons, and guerrilla warfare tactics. Furthermore, he describes the inhabitants’ lifestyle and cultural traits, which were alien to the Romans. Caesar mainly observed tribes of southern Britain, while other Roman writers such as Herodian, Cassius Dio, and Tacitus all wrote about tribes of northern Britain.6 This subtle difference highlights the Romans’ early interactions with southern Briton tribes due to their proximity to continental Europe, contrasting with later authors who wrote when there was more established contact.

There are barely any texts left from the tribes of Britain at the time when Caesar invaded, and their language remains undeciphered. While there are written Roman sources from before and after the invasion, none exist during the 50s B.C.E., when Julius Caesar explored Britain. Furthermore, despite trade activity between the island and the continent, there was no direct contact between Britons and Romans until 55 B.C.E. Thus, at this point in Romano-British history, Caesar was the primary source for some of the first direct Roman contacts with the British people. 

In his Gallic Wars, Caesar repeatedly describes the Britons’ fighting style. In addition to securing his image, Caesar claimed that his venture to the island would bring perspective to the customs, geography, and knowledge the Romans observed in the Gauls.7 When describing Briton resistance, Caesar comments particularly on the indigenous use of chariots, which is confirmed archaeologically. Chariot burials, where the deceased were buried with their fine possessions as well as a broken-down chariot, have been found in Britain both before and after Caesar’s expeditions. These burials, which date to as early as the third century B.C.E., indicate the importance and status of the chariot within Iron Age society in Britain.8 When Caesar arrived on the island in 55 B.C.E., he noted that the charioteers had “great use in their battles” and harassed the Roman troops as they landed in unknown territory.9 These chariots were considerably effective en masse, as they could both move across a battlefield hastily and induce psychological confusion.10 Caesar writes that the chariots “drive about in all directions and throw their weapons and generally break the ranks of the enemy with the heavy dread of their horses and the noise of their wheels” and that they demonstrated the “speed of horse.”11 This, combined with the Britons’ use of cavalry and infantry, was the fierce resistance that the Romans faced as they landed on the mysterious island. 

Briton Resistance in the Gallic Wars 

Caesar’s first invasion in 55 B.C.E. started off with great difficulty. To begin, he brought approximately 10,000 men and cavalry in ninety-eight ships, which failed to cross the English Channel.12 Additionally, the cavalry were caught in a storm that hindered their ability to fight in Britain. During Caesar’s first attempt to land, possibly at Dover, the Romans were met with “forces of the enemy drawn up in arms on the hills” and forced to divert 6.5 miles up the coast to either Walmer or Deal.13 When they landed there, the Britons met them with cavalry, infantry, and chariots. Caesar exclaims that the battle was “maintained vigorously” by his troops and the enemy forces.14 While Caesar mentions intense fighting in the Gallic Wars, he does so to assert the agility of Roman forces under Caesar’s generalship. He notes the guerilla warfare the Britons waged on the invading Romans in order to demonstrate the challenges his forces endured while campaigning in Britain. When Caesar’s forces were encamped on beaches, a great storm “suddenly arose” and caused much damage to his fleet and threw other ships off course.15 Roman soldiers sent to acquire food were attacked “suddenly” by Britons, who “killed a small number, threw the rest into confusion, and surrounded them with their cavalry and chariots.”16 Despite Caesar’s leadership and military experience, unknown conditions in Britain as well as guerrilla counterattacks hindered any decisive Roman victory. After negotiating terms with the Britons, mainly numbers of hostages, Caesar sailed back to Gaul. After about three weeks in Britain, Caesar’s expedition concluded and he ordered messengers to be sent back to Rome, where the Senate decreed a period of twenty days for thanksgiving. The daring, brisk yet empty nature of Caesar’s first invasion of Britain demonstrated his willingness to concede defeat. However, the exploitation of Britain that Caesar initiated fulfilled its purpose. Despite the desolate victory Caesar carved for himself in Britain, it was a satisfying narrative told on the mainland that was a lasting image for Roman generations to come.17 Two centuries later, Caesar’s expedition to Britain was depicted in a survey of his achievements by Julius Florus in this way: “having penetrated everywhere [in Gaul and Germany] by land and sea, he [Caesar] turned his gaze toward Ocean, and as if this world were not enough for the Romans, set his thoughts on another.”18 Despite this idealized view, Caesar had done little in Britain. The short, difficult campaign was nevertheless a resource for Caesar to create an image of a Roman general conquering a foreign land and living to tell the tale. 

When Caesar invaded Britain for a second time, he did so under the guise of diplomatic assistance. In 54 B.C.E., a British prince named Mandubracius fled to the European continent amid strife in Britain.19 Caesar records that Cassivellaunus, whose tribal origin is unknown, killed Mandubracius’s father, the king of the Trinovantes, and Mandubracius sought Caesar’s help in regaining kingship. This provided Caesar another chance to explore Britain, as Roman territory was a place for political refugees who were in turn utilized by the Romans to exploit relations with neighboring states. Caesar and his forces set sail once again for Britain in an attempt to gain recognition and quell quarrels in a distant land. 

The landing was in a similar location to the first but much smoother. Caesar brought a larger force of five legions, or 20,000 men and 2,000 cavalry in a fleet of 800 vessels. All ships made it to Britain unharmed and no Briton warriors were seen, as they had “concealed themselves among the higher points.”20 After marching eleven miles, the Romans caught sight of the Britons, who possessed both cavalry and chariots. Caesar records that the Britons were repulsed by his cavalry and retreated into a place in the woods that was “admirably fortified by nature and by art…for all entrances to it were shut up by a great number of felled trees.”21 The Romans struggled to rout the Britons from this defensive structure until the seventh legion utilized a rampart to force them out. This structure was likely the hillfort known as Bigbury Camp, only one of two known Iron-Age hill forts in eastern Kent.22 After setting up camp, the Romans ventured out to fight Cassivellaunus, the initial excuse for the second invasion. After crossing the Thames River, the Romans located Cassivellaunus’s capital and his 4,000 charioteers, attacked from both sides, and overwhelmed his forces. The Britons, Caesar notes, continued to defend and ambush the Romans from the woods. Afterwards, Cassivellaunus urged four other kings, Cingetorix, Carvilius, Taximagulus, and Segonax, to ambush the Roman naval camp.23 Consequently, for Caesar, his ability to defeat and collaborate with various Briton kings enforced a vision of Roman openness to the assimilation and collaboration of non-Romans. As with the Gauls, Caesar was able to present himself as a unifier of “other” peoples to Romans. Despite the collective Briton effort, the Romans repelled the Briton attacks. The Britons were driven off and a “distinguished” leader named Lugotorix was captured while Cassivellaunus sent ambassadors to negotiate with the Romans.24 Caesar demanded so many hostages from the Britons that he had to ferry his troops and loot back to the continent in two trips. This was in addition to Mandubracius being placed back on the throne.25 As before, Caesar affirmed his ability to broker peace and other diplomatic affairs. Such forceful and civil interactions instigated by Caesar would be credible pieces of evidence for his image and bid for ultimate imperial rule. By supporting Mandubracius and brokering peace with other Briton nobles, Caesar demonstrated to Romans on the continent his ability to quell unrest through Roman military intervention. These events exemplified Caesar as a competent leader that contrasted with the failing, inefficient Roman Republic. 

In addition to the negotiations Caesar initiated, his account describes some aspects of Briton culture and the tribal nature of the various communities the Romans encountered. He also claims that the most “civilized” part of Britain were the tribes that inhabited Kent. Caesar notes that the Britons dyed themselves a bluish color in order to incite fear in the enemies they fight: 

“All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with wood, which occasions a bluish color, and thereby have a more terrible appearance in fight. They wear their hair long, and have every part of their body shaved except their head and upper lip. Ten and even twelve have wives common to them, and particularly brothers among brothers, and parents among children.”26 

Despite his observations, Caesar did not escape the typical rhetoric used by Mediterranean writers of the time. The idea of “us” versus the “other” is characteristic of Roman writers, who looked down on foreign neighbors, distinguishing between Roman and non-Roman. The small villages of Britain did not have Rome’s vast influence, which was expanding around the Mediterranean despite internal strife. Furthermore, it was customary for Romans to have such a sharp distinction as Caesar expressed. Other Roman writers utilized words such as “barbarian,” “inhuman,” “aboriginal,” and “cannibalistic,” which were only the beginning of the negative descriptions non-Romans received.27 The Britons described in Caesar’s Gallic Wars, being both foreign to the Romans and forces to be destroyed, were subsequently utilized as examples of Caesar’s charismatic generalship in his bid for supreme rule in Rome. By distinguishing between Roman and non-Roman characteristics when emphasizing the discipline of his forces against the disorganized units of Britons that the Romans destroyed, Caesar exemplifies a common assessment of foreign peoples utilized to elevate Roman status.

The expeditions that Caesar led to Britain were the first official Roman contact with the Britons. His depiction of the way the Britons fought correlates with archeological evidence. Briton infantry were lightly armed and armored in contrast to the Roman soldiers, who were in chain mail and fought in formation. Without proper protection, Briton infantry and charioteers had mass casualties while fighting the Romans. Archaeological evidence reflects that the Britons rarely wore helmets. On battlefields of Rome’s choosing, the Britons did not stand a chance.28 Caesar mentioned enemy attacks being repulsed by his cavalry or other resources that they did not possess. The “small parties” of Britons that attempted to break into the Roman camp were destroyed “vigorously,” and the disciplined tactics that the Romans utilized in offensive action brought similar, crippling results.29 After crossing the Thames River to attack Cassivellaunus’s capital, the Romans pursued the Britons, and Caesar states that “the enemy could not sustain the attack of the legions and of the horse.”30 However, during the first beach landing in 55 B.C.E., the Britons were destroying the disorganized Roman units during their amphibious assault. The absence of cavalry was a severe handicap for Caesar, jeopardizing the full victory he desired.31 Nevertheless, both of Caesar’s campaigns showcased the significance that Britain held to him. Caesar exploited the vast swath of territory northwest of Italy in order to solidify his reputation back in Rome. His conquest of Gaul and invasions of Britain tell us of his ability to be a tactical opportunist, but also his ability to impose his authority on others in the pursuit of his divine rule. Caesar’s invasions of Britain were both significant additions to his reputation not only because of the strength of his leadership abilities but also the propagandic aspect. Britain was an unknown island to most Romans and staging two thrusts across the Channel elevated Caesar’s expeditions to mythical status that would be remembered for centuries. 

Conclusion on Caesar’s Invasions of Britain 

After Julius Caesar’s invasions of Britain, the island continued to be a part of the Roman sphere of influence for nearly four more centuries. Caesar was the first Roman to establish contact with the Britons directly, leading to later sustained interaction. More importantly for Caesar, his invasions of Britain solidified his image as a Roman conqueror of a foreign land. The additional labyrinth of mystery that enveloped Britain for the Romans invoked vibrant, propagandistic images of Julius Caesar, solidifying his ability to cement his leadership despite the obscurity of the British Isles.

The account Caesar presents highlights certain aspects of Briton culture that were far from normal for the Romans. Non-Roman features such as the Briton use of dye on skin or wives being “common” were frowned upon by the invading Romans.32 However, there is great emphasis in Caesar’s proselytizing narrative on indigenous guerrilla warfare to highlight fighting with foreign peoples. Furthermore, the use of chariots was particularly effective against the Romans despite legionary forces having advantages on open terrain. Caesar exclaimed great difficulty, especially in the initial landings of his expeditions as the Britons harassed his forces. Despite the narrative shadow cast for himself, there is merit in Caesar’s account for the mention of problematic guerilla warfare the Britons waged as well as the difficulty associated with lack of knowledge of both Britain’s geography and unpredictable weather. The first expedition saw Roman forces flounder in confusion on the beaches and subsequent ambushes proved to be difficult to repulse. However, once again, Caesar highlighted his flexibility as a general by adapting to these challenges. Despite the harassing nature of Briton guerrilla warfare, Caesar commended the Romans for their ability to hold firm against the unknown opponent, though retreating tactfully after both invasions. As Briton sources are scarce, Caesar’s perspective has been heavily relied upon as a reference for some of the earliest direct developments in Romano-British history. Caesar exploited the mythical status of the island as ammunition for his reputation to gain supreme leadership as the republic disintegrated. His account in the Gallic Wars suited this intention. Caesar’s expeditions to Britain elevated his status within Roman politics and consequently Britain’s importance to Rome. Highlighting Britain’s strategic value to Rome, Caesar set a trend for Romans to utilize Britain as a resource for the future. Later Roman leaders including Emperor Claudius and Gnaeus Julius Agricola embarked on campaigns in Britain. Emperor Hadrian also visited the island, and Roman cities and commerce also flowed across the Channel in increasing volumes after Caesar’s invasions of the island. The distorted conquering image that Caesar presented of Britain continued to be a part of the Roman consciousness for centuries to come.

 

Edward Tomlinson is a freshman at James Madison University pursuing majors in History and Philosophy with additional minors in Classical Studies, German, and Honors. He has been awarded scholarship funds for his research endeavors and aspires to continue exploring the Classical world. 

Photo Caption Credits: A relief created in 1796 by the British sculptor John Deare (1759–98) showing the Roman invasion of Britain based on Julius Caesar’s account, with Caesar at the center. Photo courtesy of the Victoria and Albert Museum (Caesar Invading Britain | John Deare | V&A Explore The Collections (vam.ac.uk)). 

 

Endnotes:

1. Kenneth O. Morgan, The Oxford History of Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 3. 
2. D. R. Wilson, “Defensive Outworks of Roman Forts in Britain,” Britannia 15 (1984), 55. 
3. Peter Salway, The Oxford Illustrated History of Roman Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 17–18. 
4.  Laura Aitken-Burt, et al., Ancient Rome: The Definitive Visual History (New York: DK, 2023), 112.
5. Salway, The Oxford Illustrated, 20. 
6.  David Mattingly, An Imperial Possession – Britain in the Roman Empire, 54 BC – AD 409 (New York: Penguin Books, 2007), 63. 
7. Julius Caesar, Gallic Wars, in The Works of Julius Caesar, trans. W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn, 4.20.
8.  Mattingly, Imperial Possession, 63. 
9. Caesar, Gallic Wars, 4.24.
10. Richard Hingley, Conquering the Ocean: The Roman Invasion of Britain (New York: Oxford University Press, 2022), 23. 
11.  Caesar, Gallic Wars, 4.33.
12. Hingley, Conquering the Ocean, 23. 
13. Hingley, Conquering the Ocean, 23. 
14. Caesar, Gallic Wars, 4.26.
15. Caesar, Gallic Wars, 4.28. 
16. Caesar, Gallic Wars, 4.32.
17. Salway, The Oxford Illustrated, 27. 
18. Hingley, Conquering the Ocean, 28–29. 
19. Salway, The Oxford Illustrated, 25.
20. Caesar, Gallic Wars, 5.8.
21. Caesar, Gallic Wars, 5.9.
22. Hingley, Conquering the Ocean, 28–29. 
23. Caesar, Gallic Wars, 5.22.
24. Caesar, Gallic Wars, 5.22.
25. Hingley, Conquering the Ocean, 37. 
26. Caesar, Gallic Wars, 5.14.
27. Mattingly, Imperial Possession, 35. 
28. Mattingly, Imperial Possession, 63. 
29. Caesar, Gallic Wars, 5.17. 
30. Caesar, Gallic Wars, 5.18.
31. Salway, The Oxford Illustrated, 22. 
32. Caesar, Gallic Wars, 5.14.

 

Works Cited 

Aitken-Burt, Laura, et al. Ancient Rome: The Definitive Visual History. New York: DK, 2023. 

Caesar, Julius. Gallic Wars. In The Works of Julius Caesar. Translated by W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn. Gold Grey ebooks, 2018. 

Hingley, Richard. Conquering the Ocean: The Roman Invasion of Britain. New York: Oxford University Press, 2022. 

Mattingly, David. Imperial Possession – Britain in the Roman Empire, 54 BC – AD 409. New York: Penguin Books, 2007. 

Morgan, Kenneth O. The Oxford History of Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 

Salway, Peter. The Oxford Illustrated History of Roman Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. 

Strong, Roy. The Story of Britain: A History of the Great Ages: from the Romans to the Present. New York: Pegasus Books, 2019. 

Wilson, D. R. “Defensive Outworks of Roman Forts in Britain.” Britannia 15 (1984): 51–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/526582.