No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In his Vita Galbae (7) Suetonius informs us that after Gaius' assassination Galba was urged by some to attempt to seize power but declined to do so. Consequently he was much favoured by Claudius, and held in such high regard (‘tantae dignitatis est habitus’) that when Galba was smitten by a sudden, though mild, illness, the emperor postponed the expedition launched against Britain in A.D. 43: ‘ut cum subita ei [sc.Galbae] valetudo nee adeo gravis incidisset, dilatus sit expeditionis Britannicae dies’. The reference to the postponement is clear and unequivocal, and contains nothing scurrilous or titillating that might have persuaded Suetonius to fabricate it. It does not, accordingly, seem unreasonable that modern commentators should, on the basis of this passage, record that Galba was present in Britain in A.D. 43.
1 PIR 3. 286; RE IV A 1, 777. 41. The notion seems to be held generally, among others by: Wellesley, K., The Long Year A.D. 69 (London, 1975), p. 6Google Scholar; Frere, S. S., Britannia 1 (London, 1978), p.83Google Scholar; Birley, A., The People of Roman Britain (Berkeley, 1980), p. 23Google Scholar, but with reservations in The Fasti of Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981), p. 362Google Scholar (which reached me at the proof stage); Webster, G., The Roman Invasion of Britain (London, 1980), p. 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar and myself (though not stated explicitly), Britannia 9 (1980), 32Google Scholar.
2 Dio 60. 20–3.
3 Suetonius, , Vesp. 4Google Scholar, Tacitus, , Ag. 13Google Scholar,Hist. 3. 44, Josephus BJ 3. 4, Dio 60. 20.
4 Dio 60. 8.
5 Suetonius, , Galb. 7Google Scholar.
6 As Webster, loc. cit., notes, ‘Galba's presence in Britain could therefore have presented difficulties in protocol, unless he came with Claudius as one of his comites'.
7 For a convenient exposition of the close link between Britain and the German frontier, see Balsdon, J. P. V. D., The Emperor Gaius (Oxford, 1934), pp. 76–95Google Scholar; it might be noted, for the record, that Balsdon places Galba in Britain in A.D. 43 (p. 195).
8 Tacitus, , Ann. 4. 73Google Scholar. Tacitus, , Ann. 6. 30Google Scholar; Dio 59. 22.
10 Suetonius, , Galb. 6Google Scholar.
11 Legions XV and XXII Primigeniae replaced the German legions that were used by Claudius in his British campaign. See Balsdon, , JRS 24 (1934), 13–16Google Scholar, on the suggestion that these legions were raised for that purpose not by Claudius but by Gaius before him.
12 Suetonius, , Calig. 43Google Scholar, Dio 59. 22.
13 See Smallwood, E. M., Documents Illustrating the Principates ofGaius, Claudius and Nero (Cambridge, 1967), p. 99Google Scholar.
14 The length and precise circumstances of any delay in the invasion (if, indeed, there was such a delay) must remain separate issues, but it should perhaps be noted that Suetonius' remark could supply a rational explanation for the garbled account in Dio (60. 19) of the refusal of the Roman soldiers to advance beyond the Channel. Many of the ‘mutinous’ troops would have served under Galba in Germany and would have remembered how vulnerable north Gaul was before he assumed command. They (or, indeed, Aulus Plautius, their commander) might have been unwilling to undertake the invasion until there was an assurance that Galba was well enough personally to ensure that they would be protected in their rear.