Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T23:55:18.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origin and Nature of the German and British Fleets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

D.B. Saddington
D.B. Saddington
Affiliation:
Department of Classics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The character and origin of the Roman naval forces outside Italy in the early Principate is obscure. They are usually referred to as ‘provincial’ fleets: they appear on the military diplomas only rarely. The earliest of these refers to classici who were discharged from a fleet in Egypt in A.D. 86; since the diploma was only issued after a minimum of 26 years' service, the fleet can presumably be dated to 60. Its existence under Nero is confirmed by an inscription recording a sub-prefect of the classis Alexandriae of the time and an edict of a prefect of Egypt in 63 referring to the personnel of the fleet. So far as the northern provinces are concerned, the Classis Flavia Moesica is so named on a diploma of 92. The recipients may have started their 26 years' service in other formations; but it is equally possible that they entered directly into the Moesian fleet in 66, which can then be presumed to have been in existence under Nero.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 21 , November 1990 , pp. 223 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © D.B. Saddington 1990. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Starr, C.G., The Roman Imperial Navy 31 BC - AD 324 (Cornell, 1941; Cambridge, 1960), 106ff.Google Scholar

2 CIL xvi, 32. It is possible that the classici on a lacunose diploma of 71 (xvi, 17) could have served in a provincial fleet. On the Classis Alexandrina (not so named on the diploma), cf. Kienast, D., Untersuchungen zu den Kriegsflotten der römischen Kaiserzeit (Bonn, 1966), 82ff.Google Scholar

3 ILS 2816; P. Fouad, 21. The ‘naval strength’ (συνάμεις … ναυτιxάς) which Flaccus had in Egypt under Gaius is probably evidence for the existence of the Alexandrian fleet under that emperor (Philo, In Flacc., 163).

4 CIL xvi, 37.

5 Tac., Ann. I, 11,4.

6 Ann. IV, 5, 1ff.

7 On its status, cf. D.B. Saddington, Praefecti Classis, Orae Maritimae and Ripae JRGZ (forthcoming).

8 Reddé, M., Mare Nostrum … la marine militaire sous l'empire romaine (Rome, 1986), 498.Google Scholar

9 For socius as a variant for auxiliary in Tacitus, cf. Saddington, D.B., The Development of the Roman Auxiliary Forces from Caesar to Vespasian (Harare, 1982), 30f.; 35.Google Scholar

10 Aug., R.G., 26, 4.

11 The most detailed account of the Classis Germanica is that of Stein, E., Die kaiserlichen Beamten und Truppenkörper im röm. Deutschland (Vienna, 1932), 274ff.Google Scholar and of the Classis Britannica that of Atkinson, D. in Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait (Manchester, 1933), 1ff.Google Scholar; cf. Holder, P.A., The Roman Army in Britain (London, 1982), 55f.; 132f.Google Scholar

12 Caes., B.G. 111,9, 1.

13 11, 5; cf. 14, 3: Bruto, qui classi praeerat.

14 14, 3.

15 IV, 16, 8.

16 21, 4.

17 22, 3f.

18 V, 1, 1; 2, 2.

19 V, 11, 4; 23, 4.

20 Dio LIV, 32; Suet., Claudius, 1.

21 Florus II (IV, 12), 30, 26: Bormam et Gesoriacumpontibus iunxit classibusquefirmauit. The MSS provide the alternative reading ‘Bonam’ for ‘Bormam’ and ‘Gesoriacum’ is derived from ‘Caesoria cum’ or ‘Genosiam cum’. The difficulties cannot be discussed here. In a thorough discussion Rösger, A. and Will, W., ‘Die Drususbrücke zu Bonn’, BJ clxxxv (1985), 26ff.Google Scholar have shown that the passage could make sense in the context of Drusus' campaign between the Lippe and Main in 10 B.C.

22 Aug., R.G., 26, 4; Plin., N.H., 11, 67, 167. On the date, cf. Nicolet, C., L'Inventaire du Monde (Paris, 1988), 258ff.Google Scholar, comparing Suet., Claudius, 1, 2, which states that Drusus was the first Roman general to sail in the North Sea. Cf. Tac, Germ. 34, 2.

23 Veil., II, 106, 2f.; cf. II, 121, 1 for joint naval and land operations in A.D. 11.

24 Tac., Ann. I, 45, 2 and Furneaux ad loc.

25 1, 60, 2.

26 63, 3; 70, 1; 5.

27 II, 6, 1; for Anteius, cf. PIR2 A 727: was he intended to be prefect of the fleet?

28 II, 24, 2.

29 23, 2.

30 In 6, 2 Tacitus notes the deterrent effect of the fleet.

31 XI, 18, 2.

32 Hist. I, 58, 1.

33 cf. Saddington, op. cit. (note 7).

34 IV, 55, 2; Saddington, ibid.

35 16, 3: pars remignum e Batavis. For the officia nautarum propugnatorumque cf. the officia prudentiwn in Germanicus' fleet (above, p. 225).

36 V, 18, 2; 21, 2.

37 IV, 79, 3.

38 V, 21, 2.

39 22, 3.

40 23, 1f. The small craft are called luntres. On Roman warships on the Rhine, cf. Hockmann, O., JRGZ xxxiii (1986), 389ff.Google Scholar As the text stands, Civilis is also credited with luntres captured (captae) from the Romans. He certainly had captured ships from them (22, 3) together with Cerialis' flagship. But whether they included luntres as such is uncertain: some suppose a lacuna in the text; others read ‘actae’.

41 CIL XIII, 12086a.

42 XIII, 12047. A recent (unpublished) find of a potsherd with the graffito BATA VVS on it at Fectio may be of interest if it indicates ownership by a sailor of the fleet. Two further BATAVVS graffiti have been found at other ports on the Rhine.

43 ILS 2909.

44 ILS 2828. ‘Elaites’, however, may indicate his origo rather than be a cognomen.

45 ILS 2827. A bronze prow of a votive ship found in the Moselle near Trier was dedicated by two apparent Treverans to Num(ini) Aug(usti) et Gen(io) proretar(um) (AE '64, 149). But as Büttner, A., Germania xlii (1964), 66ff.Google Scholar, who published the find, says, the dedication probably belongs to the late second century and may not even refer to the fleet: it could well have been made by merchant sailors.

46 cf. Stein, op. cit. (note 11), 274: ‘(Die Flotte) rekrutierte sich vorwiegend aus dem Osten’.

47 AE '56, 249. He was mil. ex classe G. p. f. pl(eromate) Euhodi n. The navarch has a ‘Greek’ name.

48 On the abortive invasion of Gaius, cf. Davies, R.W., Historia xv (1966), 124ff.Google Scholar, who prefers to interpret the incident as part of manoeuvres which Gaius was conducting to train the army.

49 Suet., Cal., 46f.; Dio LIX, 25, 2.

50 Dio LX, 19, 4.

51 Tac., Ann. XIV, 29, 3; cf. 39, 3 for a small naval mishap of Paulinus'.

52 Hist. IV, 79, 3.

53 Agr. 18, 4.

54 25, 1f.; cf. 30, 1.

55 38, 3; cf. 10, 4, where they conquered the Orcades. Plutarch (De Def. Or. 410a; 419e) mentions a scholar, Demetrius of Tarsus (cf. RIB 662f.), who accompanied the expedition to conduct scientific observations. He claimed to have been sent ‘by the emperor’. If the word emperor is significant, does it imply some central interest in exploration (rather than initiative only on the part of Agricola)?

56 Tac., Agr., 38, 4. Hind, J.G.F., Britannia v (1974), 286Google Scholar argues for a site on the coast of Cumberland. The emendation Rutup(i)ensem goes back to Lipsius.

57 CIL XIII, 3542; for a definite trierarch of the British fleet at Boulogne, cf. Q. Arrenio Verecundo tr. cl. Br. (ILS 2910).

58 CIL XIII, 3543f. For a Thracian in the Classis Germanica after it had acquired the title P.F. cf. AE '99, 97: he was strangely buried in Italy (after only 18 years service).

59 The problem of the name of Gesoriacum – Bononia (Boulogne) cannot be discussed here. The fact that Tiberius addressed a letter to the city of the Aezani in Asia Minor ἀβó Boνωνίαξ τήξ ἐν Γαλλίᾳ in the decade following A.D. 4 (ILS 9463) may imply that Boulogne was more than a camp by that date. But one cannot conclude from this that a fleet was stationed there.

60 Suet., Claudius, 17, 2.

61 As Cunliffe, B., Fifth Report on … Richborough Res. Rep. Soc. Ant. Lond. xxiii (1968), 257Google Scholar, says, stamped tiles of the fleet do not pre-date the second century.

62 In an ingenious paper, Reed, N. (Historia xxiv (1975), 315ff.)Google Scholar has suggested that the British fleet was founded in 12 B.C. However, it seems unlikely that Augustus would have formed a fleet merely ‘to threaten Britain with invasion if necessary’ (322) or to protect commercial navigation in the Channel: the early fleets were parts of actual invasion forces. Reed's other suggestion, that Drusus stationed part of his fleet at Gesoriacum in 12 B.c., does not accord with his northerly line of invasion and, in any case, as he himself points out (319), it would not have been called a Classis Britannica at this stage.

63 Tac., Germ. 34, 1: the Frisian lakes Romanis classibus navigates. Pliny the Elder (NH XXXVII, 12, 42), when mentioning the naval forces of Germanicus in 16, also uses the plural ‘classes’. It also appears in Florus, loc. cit. (note 21). As far as the harbour of the Classis Germanica at Köln-Alteburg is concerned, Dr M. Gechter has kindly informed me that an unpublished study has shown that the Arretine terra sigillata from the site can be dated to Tiberius. For an earlier account of the harbour by him, cf. BJ clxxix (1979), 94f.

64 Strabo xvi, 4, 23, 780.