52
under Pompey in 63/2 BC, rewarding him for his loyalty in the war against
Mithradates. Roman military advisers had helped Deiotarus put together and
train 12,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry in 48 BC. Unfortunately, the unit was
defeated in a battle against King Pharnaces of Pontus, but the survivors were
regrouped into a legion that fought alongside Caesar’s troops in the battle of
Zela the following year. In 25 BC, the kingdom was bequeathed to Augustus,
who integrated the formations into the Roman army as Legio XXII Deiotari-
ana (Bel. Alex. 34–41, 65–77; Cic. Pro Rege Deiotaro; Keppie 1990).
The conclusion that should be reached is that friendly kingdoms could have
local forces adopting Roman military styles of dress and tactics. Also, genu-
ine Roman auxiliary or legionary units could be and were garrisoned in friendly
kingdoms.
Let us turn our attention back to Britain. After the Claudian annexation of
the southeast, the existence of various friendly kingdoms proved no bar to
Roman troops operating within them. In the north in Brigantia, Cartimandua
was maintained on her throne with the use of Roman aid (Tac. Hist. 3.45). In
the east, the Iceni were disarmed in AD 47, leading to a small revolt, despite
being part of the kingdom of Prasutagus (Tac. Ann. 12.31, though for all
we know Prasutagus may only have been made king after this event). In the
south it has been suggested that the military base at Fishbourne was set up
in order to keep an eye on the kingdom of Cogidubnus (though see below).
So friendly kings and queens after AD 43 had Roman troops in their territ-
ories, but what about earlier? Do we have any evidence of a Roman military
presence in the friendly domains of the Commian or Tasciovanian dynasties?
Augustus had certainly thought of sending expeditions to Britain when the
people there had failed to come to terms with him in 27–6 BC (Dio 53.22
and 25). However since a settlement was eventually reached with friendly
kings making dedications on the Capitol (Strab. Geog. 4.5.3) and other suppli-
ant kings visiting Rome (Res Gestae 32), one wonders whether all of this was
achieved without any ‘encouragement’.
One thing we have constantly to recall is the patchy nature of the his-
torical record relating to Britain. It is far from perfect. By no means did all
military activity hit the headlines in Rome and make it into the history books;
and even when history was composed, not all of it survived. There are two
specifi c gaps that hinder the study of Britain. First, the chapters of Tacitus’
Annals relating to Gaius’ reign and the fi rst years of Claudius’ are all missing.
Not only that, but a section is also missing from Dio (59.25). Dio structured
his work thematically, and it is infuriating that a missing section comes in the
part where he is dealing with the forthcoming annexation of one friendly
kingdom, Mauretania, and restarts with Gaius’ legions on the edge of the
English Channel picking up seashells. Whatever he had to say about Britain
was severely truncated. None the less, there are some hints that Gaius had a
real military engagement with Britain.
Literary tradition is very hostile towards Gaius. Historical sources belittled
FORCE, VIOLENCE AND THE CONQUEST