The countryside around Stirling is replete with historical association. Celebrated episodes from all periods of Scotland's history occurred here, and monuments have been raised to some. However, we have yet to adequately memorialise certain events that occurred long before the battles of Bannockburn and Stirling Bridge. These events established the basis for much of what happened subsequently, during a time when our land was just beginning to find its way onto the pages of recorded history.
If you ascend the hills behind the Abbey Craig to an elevation from which one might look down upon the Wallace Monument, you might find yourself among the ruins of an ancient hill fort. The prospect from Dumyat Hill is spectacular, including, on a clear day, all the land from Arthur's Seat in the east to Arrochar (and hence Ben Arthur) in the west, in its broad scope. It is easy to understand why this site was chosen as the citadel of the people known to the Romans as the
Maeatae, and to St. Adamnan five centuries later, in his biography of St. Columba, as the
Miathi.
As you walk in what remains of the halls of the Miathi, cast your mind back eighteen centuries to a time when deliberations at this site must surely have been pivotal in stimulating defiance and stiffening resolve to gain ultimate and decisive victory, when the people of this land successfully resisted Roman attempts to add it to their dominions.
The failure of Rome to impose its authority on that part of the island of Britain that lies to the north of Hadrian's Wall injects a dissonance into the historical imagination which has conventionally been resolved in revisionist histories by dismissing that region as irrelevant to Roman ambition. It is asserted that it was not sufficiently attractive to excite Roman cupidity. The failure of Roman arms when borne against the people of the north would otherwise stand as an implicit reproach against those further south whose forebears' undoubted courage, tenacity and resourcefulness nevertheless proved inadequate to the task of repelling the invader. If the Romans deemed the north to be negligible, then future generations in the south might take that verdict as confirmation of their own prejudices and self-regard.
The written testimony of the Romans themselves seems to bear this out. Initial overwhelming military success can be compared to a subsequent lack of interest. The conclusion is inevitably drawn that they could have subdued the north, but decided not to because it wasn't worth it. This even allows some to present the capitulation in the south as a positive endorsement of its comparative worth. The people of the south are deemed worthy of inclusion within the Roman empire, amenable to its civilising influence, while the incorrigible barbarians of the barren and worthless north are considered to require too much time and effort and are denied admission.
However even a cursory glance at the archaeological evidence contradicts this. The north boasts the highest density of Roman military marching camps anywhere. The Romans invaded the north on at least four separate occasions in a series of concerted but ultimately futile efforts to subjugate it. The construction of what was to be, at the time, the largest legionary fortress in the Roman world, at Inchtuthill, was commenced to consolidate their initial military success. However, they were forced to abandon this project within only three years, while construction was still only 40% complete.
Slowly one begins to understand that taking the Roman written record at face value requires uncritically accepting a partisan account of this period in history. The only reason to do this would be if those accounts conveniently agree with contemporary prejudices which one seeks to reinforce.
The Agricolan campaign in Scotland is well known. As described by his nephew Tacitus, Agricola's force, composed mainly of auxiliaries, routed a Caledonian host at Mons Graupius in 84 C.E. Tacitus attributes a rousing speech to the Caledonian leader Calgacus (a title rather than a personal name) which, although probably a coded criticism of the emperor Domitian on the part of Tacitus, not actually spoken by a Caledonian, nevertheless associates the first spoken words attributed to a native of Scotland with ideals of freedom and the resistance of oppression.
The written narrative is curtailed at this high water mark of Roman success. Archaeology tells us that work started on a fortress at Inchtuthill in Perthshire as a consequence of this victory. This was intended to be the home of the Twentieth Legion and, as mentioned, would have been the largest legionary fortress in the empire at that time. This was only one part of a complex set of planned fortifications intended to complete the subjugation of the entire island of Britain.
Charred remains, and
materiel put beyond use rather than removed (presumably due to the haste of retreat and withdrawal) have been unearthed by archaeologists. The Romans won the battle, but they did not win the war.
Before the end of that decade the Romans had pulled back, or rather, had been driven out. The raising of Hadrian's Wall followed, starting in 122 C.E. Around this time the Ninth Legion famously disappeared from history after having been transferred to the region, although some recent scholarship suggests no sinister reason for this.
The Forth-Clyde isthmus had been identified as the narrowest stretch of land on which to erect a barrier denoting the limit of Roman power and so it was decided by the emperor Antoninus that one would be raised in his name by his lieutenant Lollius Urbicus. In 143 C.E. in Rome he enjoyed one of the many triumphs that Roman emperors celebrated for victories they claimed but had not won in Scotland. Indeed he himself never set foot here. Once again, within 20 years, the fortification was abandoned.
And then, at the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd centuries C.E., events transpired which would precipitate the most catastrophic
vernichtungskrieg against the people of Scotland ever attempted, subsequent to which it cannot be said the Romans displayed no interest in annexing Scotland to their empire. The resources of the entire empire were focused on crushing all resistance in Scotland in an attempt to confer upon the emperor Septimius Severus a final crowning achievement in his dazzlingly successful military career, and to complete once and for all the "unfinished business" of Scotland. The privations inflicted on the people of Scotland were dire.
In Scotland, in response to the latest Roman presumption, the Maeatae had risen and expelled the interlopers. The Maeatae occupied as their citadel the hill of Dumyat ("The fortress of the Maeatae") overlooking Stirling. They had gained influence and led a confederation of tribes united by their common enemy, Rome.
Their sacred isle, where those of high status were taken to be interred, was the Isle of May in the Firth of Forth, a prototypical Avalon. They worshipped principally the sea god Manannan mac Lir, a practise that persisted from this time until at least the 7th century when St’s Serf and Kentigern objected to it.
Roman commentators noted that the social structure of the people of Scotland was simple and egalitarian: leaders were chosen on the basis of their ability and fighting prowess, and the women had the right to own property and represent themselves in decision making assemblies on an equal basis with men. This contrasted with the status of women in Roman society and scandalised Roman commentators reported how a condition which in more recent time might have been described as "free love" existed. Children were raised in common, as their paternity could not be established with certainty.
It is interesting to observe that under these circumstances matrilineal descent of the form some have deduced from later Pictish king lists will operate, since the issue of maternity is never in doubt, so perhaps there was more to Roman claims than mere slander.
The people lived mainly by raising livestock. The rich land of Manau, around modern day Clackmannanshire, provided the Maeatae with plentiful crops but brought them into contact with the eastern extremity of the Antonine wall where the Romans were eager to re-establish their presence at Camelon.
Meanwhile, the Roman world was riven by civil strife. Of the various claimants of ultimate authority to emerge from the chaos in the aftermath of the murder of Commodus, the most able general was selected by the grim attrition of war.
Septimius Severus was an outstanding tactician and strategist, scornful of civilian institutions, and undefeated in battle. Once his position was secure and his domestic rivals had been eliminated, he humiliated Rome's competitors, such as Parthia, on the battlefield, in the name of the Roman empire. He sired two rival brothers, Caracalla and Geta, who he hoped to bear his posterity, but who were dissolute and decadent as a result of the privileges and indulgence they enjoyed on account of their father.
As Septimius Severus grew old he settled upon the idea of achieving a final glorious triumph to commend his name to history, and decided that the conquest of the region we now call Scotland, something his predecessors had been unable achieve, would grant him the immortality he craved.
In 208 C.E. the emperor Septimius Severus, then 63 years of age, arrived to lead in person his invasion of Scotland. Although the garrison of the province of Britannia was the largest
per capita of any in the Roman world, including three legions, more troops were brought. 9,000 elite imperial guards supported by cavalry were added to the invasion force, along with the newly formed Second Parthica legion, made up of battle hardened veterans from the Roman wars with Parthia. Naval support was provided by the British fleet, the Rhine fleet, and two fleets brought from the Danube.
After concentrating his troops near Melrose (Trimontium) he proceeded north, eventually reaching the Moray Firth, where he is said to have made astronomical observations of the midwinter solstice. The Maeatae and Caledonians avoided open battle and pursued guerrilla tactics.
At great financial expense the Romans purchased a truce before retreating back to Hadrian's wall in 209 C.E. to celebrate another "triumph". The reality was that Roman estimates of their losses during their retreat amount to 50,000 men. The situation was such that the emperor's son Caracalla felt able to try to assassinate him during the truce negotiations.
The endurance of the Maeatae and the Caledonians during their guerrilla campaign became the stuff of legend to the Roman soldiers, who told each other tales that they could lie in wait up to their necks in the swamps that beset the region for days on end, ready to spring an ambush, and that they possessed an almost magical food, the size of a bean, which, if eaten, would prevent all feelings of hunger and thirst. Modern botanists have identified this plant as bitter vetch, which has been used more recently as an appetite suppressant.
The earliest utterance that we can attribute with some degree of confidence to a native of Scotland was made at this time by a woman known only as the wife of Argentocoxus ("silver arm," possibly another title, c.f. Nuada Airgetlám) during truce negotiations. The Roman emperor's wife, Julia Domna, (according to Cassius Dio) had made a disparaging remark concerning the morals of the people of Scotland along the lines of the commentators mentioned previously. The wife of Argentocoxus immediately retorted
"We consort openly with the best of men, while you allow yourselves to be debauched in private by the worst"
These are the first recorded words we can be reasonably confident were actually spoken by an inhabitant of Scotland. Certainly not the comment of a woman deferring to a conqueror! It is tempting to identify Argentocoxus with the individual named Artcois in the Pictish Chronicle (in so far as that document can be relied upon). The contraction of the name is plausible and his
floruit would be at roughly the right time. He is listed in the chronicle, not as ruling, but as the father of a man named Ciniod who ruled. This would suggest that Argentocoxus was the consort of a powerful and noble woman.
In 210 C.E. the emperor, from his base south of Hadrian's wall, instructed Caracalla to lead his troops north again, and gave explicit orders to kill every man, woman, child and animal they encountered, to leave nothing alive. Caracalla was less able than his father, however, and was driven out more rapidly. Around this time the archaeological record indicates the central fort on Hadrian's wall, Vindolanda, was razed to the ground.
Recently archaeologists have interpreted the circular huts that replaced the fort at Vindolanda during this period as evidence of a Roman concentration camp in which captive Britons were kept. Such interpretations are informed more by the southern historian's prejudices than by a rational approach to the evidence. Why would it be necessary to destroy a valuable fort to erect a concentration camp comprised of buildings in a native style?
The repairs made to Hadrian's wall at this time as a result of it being breached generally were so extensive that most Roman authors thereafter concluded that the wall itself had been Severus' rather than Hadrian's initiative. It was called the Severan Wall until early modern times. It is only because of modern scholarship that we know it as "Hadrian's Wall."
In general, the comparison that suggests itself to me when considering Roman remains found in ruined forts and marching camps in Scotland is the decorations and art in abandoned German bunkers as the forces of the Third Reich withdrew from eastern Europe. We see a similar disparagement of the natives who are to be subdued. We see the strength of the imperial power's arms extolled. All amid a desolate scene of Ozymandian futility. To take Roman records at face value just because they confirm a presumed southern superiority is as ridiculous as to believe the propaganda with which the Germans attempted to bolster morale even while their position collapsed.
Septimius Severus died at York in 211 C.E. while planning yet another invasion. His failure to subdue Scotland after mobilising the resources of his empire to do so proved definitive and subsequent Roman incursions were temporary reactions to raids across the wall or scouting parties known as exploratores. Never again would Romans delude themselves that they could conquer Scotland.
The successful resistance of the people of this land is not an anomaly to be explained away, dismissed or ignored outright. We must regard it as a remarkable achievement in the ancient world and one to be commemorated. The Germans have monuments to their victory over the Romans at Teutoberger Wald. Events in Scotland deserve similar commemoration.
Scotland must recall that her reputation for military prowess does not just derive from her role as a provider of fighting men to promote British interests overseas in wars of oppression, themselves often legitimised by imperialists with reference to Roman successes and prototypes. This must be acknowledged and atoned for, certainly, but Scotland's renown also derives from wars of liberation, from her rebuttal of English pretension during the Wars of Independence, and from her repulse of the Dane, and before that, the Roman too.
Those days are past now, and in the past they must remain, but let us think of the things worth fighting for today, things we can achieve in our struggle for peace and social justice. Let us celebrate a Scotland about to take her place once more as a beacon of freedom and unpretentious egalitarianism, unconquered.
Once and forever,
Scotia Invicta.
Alba gu Brath!
