Britain & Rome: Caesar to Claudius: The Exposure of a Renaissance Fraud

by P.J. O'Gorman

This is a bold reassessment of one of the pivotal points in British history. PJ O’Gorman analyses the sources for the period from Julius Caesar’s first forays into these islands to the invasion under the Emperor Claudius and the conclusions he reaches are nothing short of radical and call into question much of the accepted narrative of Roman invasion and conquest.

The author starts by showing that Caesar’s initial cross-Channel adventures were motivated not so much by seeking the glory of taming primitive savages but to gain control of an economic powerhouse. His treatment of the period leading up to the Claudian invasion and the invasion itself is even more shocking. Most significantly he argues convincingly that two of the most important Roman sources underpinning the conventional narrative are in fact Renaissance fakes and that their acceptance has distorted the interpretation of modern archaeological evidence. Meanwhile he reinstates a discounted British source. The result is a startlingly different version of Britain’s early history.

Genres: History

224 pages, Hardcover

Published June 30, 2022

Reviews

[Ozymandias · Rating 1 out of 5]

Nationalist Pseudohistory
The fundamental problem with Pen & Sword is that they have absolutely no editorial standards. You know roughly where you stand with most publishers: when you pick up a book you can expect it to meet a certain level of reliability. But here it depends entirely on the author. There are certainly good books to come out of their publishing house (Michael Whitby’s The Wars of Justinian I being a recent example), but that is solely due to the fact that the authors applied their own rigorous standards of accuracy and research. If you don’t have that commitment there will be no editorial factchecking or peer review whatsoever. But they’ll publish your book anyway. Whatever sells.

Which brings us to this book. This is a monograph about historiography essentially, attempting to rewrite the history of Rome by discrediting our two most essential sources: Cassius Dio and Tacitus. The “argument” is that the two books weren’t discovered until Renaissance scholars published them in the 15th century as part of their efforts to gather together all Roman knowledge, so therefore they must be fakes. ‘Nobody mentioned Tacitus before then’: true(ish), but only if you leave out Sulpicius Severus, the Historia Augusta, Jordanes, and Pliny the Younger. Surprise! Most of them are fakes too! Or at best misunderstood or used as sources for “Tactitus”. What a skilled forger that man must have been! I assume he’s also the one who planted Claudian coins and inscriptions throughout Britain and Italy celebrating the conquest. Great work! Dio is the truly hilarious one though. Tacitus was indeed pretty obscure in Medieval times, only surviving in two monasteries deep in Germany, but Dio was used a lot by Byzantine authors. In fact, much of his work has only survived in 11th/12th century epitomes by Zonaras and Xiphilinus. What’s that? Those are fakes too? Because they were Greek texts published widely in Constantinople but unknown in Italy (clearly the only place where documented history existed) until after that city fell? Good to know!

So he rejects Tacitus and Dio as frauds. Okay. You’ll never guess who he believes instead: Geoffrey of frickin’ Monmouth!! Even when his book was published in the 12th century people knew it was a fake! To call something “a story of Arthur” was the Medieval equivalent of calling it a pack of lies. You know all those source problems he found in Dio and Tacitus? Doesn’t see any here with Geoffrey’s magical vanishing tome of Welsh history that nobody but him saw. No problem at all with the fact that Geoffrey’s accounts of events on the continent don’t line up with any continental source. Or the fact that the same book has Merlin the wizard giving prophecies about future events, up to and including the Norman Conquest 600 years later. Now I love Geoffrey as much as the next guy, but what makes his work great is the story. It’s a lot of fun and led to a whole bunch of entertaining Arthurian myths. But it’s not history and any effort to make it history can only happen by discrediting all the other sources as well as any archaeological evidence. Hence why we’re here. Funny just how much a book decrying ancient historians’ reliance on a “few scraps of ancient authors” relies itself on a single dubious medieval text. Except, of course, when even Geoffrey is insufficiently anglocentric for his liking. More on that later.

The amusing thing about all these “arguments” is that they’re really just pretending to be source criticism. None of them provide any actual evidence that the sources are fake. The mere fact that they could have been faked is treated as proof that they must have been. No effort is made to confirm/deny their contents by comparing the unique facts they contain to epigraphic or archaeological details that would have been unavailable to Renaissance forgers. The absence of any archaeological evidence for a great battle is the only external fact check mentioned, but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of ancient battlefields we have archaeological evidence for. And that’s including places where we know battles took place! In fact, the only real reason given why they must be fake is that they contradict Geoffrey of Monmouth! And how do we know he was accurate? Well… he was British of course, so that makes him reliable. Plus he had that magic disappearing book, remember? What’s the world coming to when people challenge magic disappearing books? Pen & Sword are mainly about popular reconstructions of military history. If an extended source criticism sounds like the sort of thing you’d expect to find from a more academic publication: you’re right. But none of them would have touched it with a ten foot pole because the peer reviewers would have torn his arguments to shreds in a heartbeat!

I haven’t said much about motives so far because that leans into speculation, but as I describe the reconstructed past he offers I hope you’ll understand the reason for my conclusions. Presumably love of Geoffrey and his work is part of why he’s flailing here. But the other major part seems to be some pretty extreme British nationalism/xenophobia. Do you know why Dio and Tacitus were faked? To undermine England of course! The Italians (bloody furriners!) at the Vatican were jealous of Britain and Germany and so tried to cut them down a peg by, um, mentioning them briefly in a pair of sources that display little interest in British (or indeed Christian) affairs. That’ll show ’em! The true history is that unconquered Britain successfully drove off the Romans and maintained its independence through at least four attempts at conquest. The last (Claudius’) saw the emperor so badly mauled that he surrendered his daughter Antonia in marriage to the British king and formed a Romano-British alliance with Britain as an equal partner. After all, Britain was the economic powerhouse of Europe! Wow! Caesar’s unsuccessful campaigns in Gaul were a financial disaster (bloody Frogs!) and that’s why he lusted for British lucre. Some Roman soldiers stayed behind in Britain of course, but only as laborers. Claudius himself was so chuffed at being allowed into the British royal family that he boasted about it on all his inscriptions, where Britannicus, contrary to the usage of every emperor who adopted a name ending in -icus (including his brother Germanicus), meant “British” rather than “conqueror of the British”. Oddly, this pride was not shared by any Roman source, who all record Antonia’s marriage to a Roman senator and Claudius’ conquest of Britain. Insecurity at their misfortune in not being born part of the master race I guess. But all went swimmingly until Nero killed Antonia for not marrying him at which point the British drove the last Romans out. Without Britain’s economy bankrolling his empire, Nero’s regime quickly destabilized and he was put to death. After Nero, the British kings graciously consented to renew the economic alliance but not the political ties, thank you very much (bloody EU!). Presumably they built Hadrian’s Wall themselves for tourism purposes but covered up their responsibility by writing only in Latin and moaning about the Brittunculi (“contemptible Brits”) while pretending to be Roman soldiers from Batavia and all other sorts of backgrounds (even in their skeletal remains, the cheeky blighters!). The only part of Rome to have any long-term hold on Britain was the Roman Catholic Church, but even here this only happened after the empire’s fall.

I normally try to avoid negative comments about character and intelligence, but as this is a restraint he certainly doesn’t feel (“arrogant academics and proselytizing padres and politicians”, “blinkered band of brothers”, “Classicists’ indoctrinated ignorance and… narrow, naïve, and romantic approach to British history (lol)… calls into question their ambition and ability to critically assess…” etc.) I’ll say it flat out: this is a fundamentally stupid and unserious tract. There is no value to it as a history and anyone reading it will come away knowing less than when they went in. It is a bizarre conspiracy-ridden screed apparently based around an arrogant conviction that Britain has always been great and a discomfort at the idea that it was ever conquered. It argues for the complete reliability of a source with literal wizards in, whose claimed sources have never been seen nor used by any other writer, against two entirely independent source traditions – written in different languages – that can be traced (albeit sometimes dimly) into the Medieval and Classical eras. Its lack of any real argument is matched only by its contempt for anyone stupid enough to require one. It began as an undergraduate dissertation, and he’s quite proud of the fact that even at that level several teachers rejected it as absurd. It proves he’s struck a nerve and that alone is evidence he’s onto something! I’m reminded of Bertrand Russel: “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt.”

Anyone looking for a book on actual British history should check out David Mattingly’s An Imperial Possession. Mattingly is an archaeologist amusingly, which makes the accusation that only blinkered Classicists and their textual obsession could be stupid enough to fall for clear Renaissance forgeries obvious for the nonsense that it is. There’s an overwhelming glut of archaeological evidence cited here for Roman control of Britain. I’m entirely unsurprised it’s not cited in his bibliography.

[Annie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Originally posted on my blog: Nonstop Reader.

Britain and Rome: Caesar to Claudius The Exposure of a Renaissance Fraud is an accessible and well written examination of a contentious bit of early British history by P. J. O'Gorman. Due out 30th June from Pen & Sword Military, it's 224 pages and will be available in hardcover format.

Most of accepted history is built up in countless layers by historians starting from a common point and adding and filling out detail from newly (re)discovered sources. Occasionally, however, someone comes along and causes a sensation by refuting the commonly accepted basis, forcing a re-examination of the entire framework. In this case, the author has boldly stated that the stanchions of early British history, including Tacitus (who, according to O'Gorman, invented Boudicca whole cloth) and Cassius Dio who also was less factually inclined and more a writer of fiction. That later historians based their work on the shoulders of what were essentially writers of fiction (which may have been invented by later renaissance authors whole cloth), obviously casts our modern history into doubt.

I was fascinated by the boldness of the claims, and I do applaud the skepticism with which he examines and presents evidence piece by piece. I am not enough of a real scholar of history (more of a keen amateur), but I admit that I was fascinated and he certainly makes a cogent argument.

This is the sort of book which could either change the entire paradigm, or be debunked as the work of a crank by other academics. I'm a bioengineering nerd and my real bonafides lie in other fields, but I confess that I am fascinated by what he has to say. I am also enough of a history nerd to love the sort of "gauntlet throwing" language he uses in the book and I would love to see a peer-review of the work here.

For actual historians and fans of deep-diving subjects in history, the language is quite accessible, and the author has done a meticulous job with the annotations. It appears in my admittedly inexpert opinion, to be rigorously built up and correct. The maps, timelines, and facsimiles and photos helped to add a layer of context and helped me to keep track of the chief actors.

Five stars. I can't say absolutely without reservation that the author really knows what he's talking about, but he certainly seems to make a good case. I liked that he wasn't mealy-mouthed in the least about throwing down the gauntlet. I've made a note for myself to come back in a couple years and check the peer reviews for this book.

Disclosure: I received an ARC at no cost from the author/publisher for review purposes.

[Carol Keogh (Goodfellow) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well this book will certainly cause healthy debate! O'Gorman writes with confidence on this subject, and his opinion that the old sources we know and believed have been created during a re-writing of history period is certainly controversial. I am unfamiliar with this author so am not sure if his version of the facts holds water but his assured writing gives pause for thought. This is a fascinating book and as a fan of revisionist history I support any assertions which change the way we view historical events. I leave it up to the reader to decide if there is truth to what we learn here. Keep an open mind and read 'Britain and Rome: Caesar to Claudia's. I look forward to reading other opinions on this publication. I am grateful to Netgalley, Pen & Sword and PJ O'Gorman for a great book.

[CASPER HILEMAN · Rating 4 out of 5]

P.J. O'Gorman provides a manageable history of the rise of the Roman Empire from Julius Caesar to the last of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty and the expanse of Roman power. This is a good book for people with a desire to learn about the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise and stagnation of the early empire period.

[Robert Neil Smith · Rating 2 out of 5]

Did you know that Tacitus’ writings were a fake? And those of Cassius Dio? Agricola didn’t exist, nor did Boudicca and her destruction of the fake town of Camulodunum. They are all fictions, part of a Renaissance fraud perpetrated by the Roman Catholic church in an attempt to control classical history and thus establish Papal supremacy in northern Europe and England. Rather, P.J. O’Gorman argues in Britain and Rome, the only true history of Britain between the invasions of Caesar and Claudius is a Brittonic source as viewed through the lens of Geoffrey of Monmouth.
O’Gorman’s opening shots are fired at the traditional narrative of Julius Caesar’s invasions. He argues that Britain was a wealthy trading island providing support to Gaul against Caesar. The Britons were certainly well organised enough to send Caesar packing on his first attempt. But that was diversionary, according to O’Gorman, the second attempt would be a proper invasion of conquest. But it too failed, despite Caesar claiming otherwise. With that, O’Gorman turns to the sources that lie at the heart of his thesis.
We owe our accepted understanding of the sources for early Roman Britain to the Renaissance, O’Gorman posits. He focuses on Tacitus and Dio and their inconsistencies, which have largely been ignored. Tacitus, and how we came to know his work, is first on O’Gorman’s chopping block. We know very little about the historian and almost all of his work stems from discoveries in the Renaissance – the Agricola dates to 1476. Dio too was not discovered until the Renaissance. Neither of them had been heard of before that period. O’Gorman concludes that ‘Tacitus and Dio are unreliable; they are fabrications…’. The 6th Century Anglo-Saxon historian Gildas, on the other hand, becomes the first identifiable British historian, and O’Gorman puts much stock in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia, stemming from a 5th Century Brittonic source. Having established his thesis, O’Gorman sets out to prove it.
O’Gorman begins his journey into the Brittonic source with an examination of the British royal lineage, comparing that evidence to Caesar’s Commentaries. This goes well until O’Gorman finds that Boudicca was a ‘fictional queen of the Iceni’ invented during the Renaissance. Nevertheless, O’Gorman sticks with his thesis that the Brittonic source is the most reliable account of British history during this period, complementing Caesar and Suetonius in crucial details. O’Gorman turns his attacks on Cassius Dio, the traditionalist’s historian for the Claudian invasion, who he finds inauthentic, while Tacitus is again dismissed as fictitious. Returning to Dio, O’Gorman argues that his work on Roman Britain was plagiarised from Caesar and Seutonius. He then explains why Dio and Tacitus only appear in the Renaissance. O’Gorman sets that up against a background of mediaeval intrigue, the restoration of papal supremacy, and the establishment of the Renaissance as a ‘perverse propaganda programme’.
Turning to the archaeology for the Claudian invasion, O’Gorman notes that what we think we have revolves around Dio’s ‘imagining’. But O’Gorman finds no evidence for Dio’s Claudian arch and castigates those who do, or think they do. He also attacks interpretations of inscriptions and numismatic evidence; the latter O’Gorman mostly puts down to Renaissance forgeries. Returning to Dio’s writings on Claudius’ invasion of Britain, O’Gorman maintains that it is ‘bogus’ and that Dio is a ’lazy and blatant’ plagiarist who replaces Caesar with Claudius and embellishes the rest of the story. O’Gorman argues also that the Roman town of Camulodunum is another Renaissance fiction.
To find a reliable account, O’Gorman turns once again to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s transcription of the Brittonic source. Here we find a very different account of Claudius’ invasion, one in which Claudius was forced to use diplomacy rather than conquest and Rome did not subjugate Britain at all despite maintaining an army on the island. They were there, according to O’Gorman, only to facilitate a trade deal. He then discusses the evidence from Juvenal alongside Seutonius, amongst which he claims Nero lost Britain. A consideration of Claudius’ daughter, Antonia Augusta, follows, which is pivotal to O’Gorman’s argument regarding a marriage treaty rather than conquest.
O’Gorman turns his fire on modern Roman historians. He rejects the concept of Romanisation and those who perpetuate it through nepotism and ‘blinkered beliefs’. He provides a ‘genealogy’ of Oxford classicists and calls them a ‘band of brothers’ preventing progress in this field. O’Gorman attacks their continued belief in Tacitus and Dio and labels their work as ‘indoctrinated ignorance’. He then rehashes his arguments over Tacitus and Dio, pointing to the Brittonic source as the ‘guiding light’ for understanding Britian and the Romans. This also requires a reassessment of the available archaeology, including Fishbourne Palace, Winchester and its treasure, the ‘red herring’ of Camulodunum, Glevum, and coin volume and distribution. O’Gorman also finds no evidence for the traditionally held campaigns from 43AD to 60AD, including the Boudiccan rebellion. He goes on to say that academics have now accepted that the evidence weighs against the traditionalist view. O’Gorman’s final chapter regurgitates his reconstruction from his evidence. His appendices are comprised of extracts from Caesar, Suetonius, and other sources he deems relevant to support his case.
It’s not often that you read a book where the aim is to bring down a whole field of study along with its most acclaimed scholars. But that is O’Gorman’s purpose in Britain & Rome. His effort, however, falls flat for various reasons. First, he has to knock out the twin pillars of Tacitus and Cassius Dio, but he does so by deploying a fundamental flaw that runs through the book: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This doesn’t just apply to those two historians, O’Gorman argues that other historians, such as Suetonius, would have mentioned things if they had happened; but Suetonius didn’t, so they didn’t. It’s a weak line of reasoning to underpin O’Gorman’s thesis. Moreover, O’Gorman misunderstands the role of plagiarism, applying modern values to ancient historians who routinely drew on other sources to tell their stories or bolster their arguments and thought nothing of it. In addition, O’Gorman’s selection of archaeological evidence omits some peculiar examples, the most glaring of which, to this reviewer, is the absence of discussion on marching camps – if the Romans did not conduct military expeditions into the interior of Britain, what function did the camps serve? However, setting his argument aside, the most unedifying aspect of O’Gorman’s diatribe is the tone he uses, which is often disrespectful, dismissive, and sarcastic, as if he knows that the evidence he musters cannot hold the water he wants it to carry, so he has to attack his opposing historians, both ancient and modern. It’s all very distasteful and unbecoming of a serious historian as O’Gorman purports to be. This is all rather unfortunate because there is an argument to include the Brittonic source in the discussion of the early Roman contacts with the Britons, be they peaceful or otherwise, but O’Gorman chooses not to engage in any meaningful or respectful way with his peers or forbears. All in all, Britain & Rome is a wasted opportunity, a flawed thesis written with unwarranted venom.

[Geoffrey Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! A must read for anyone interested in Britain's pre-Roman and Roman past, the Dark Ages, Reformation and Renaissance.

[Sonia · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful reappraisal of British history. I am drawn to anything that questions an accepted top-down narrative and this page-turner doesn't disappoint! P. J. O'Gorman provides an extensive list of footnotes, appendix and bibliography (which I love to check evidence and cross reference material).

The argument is relatively simple - Britain's Roman history, well Tacitus and Cassius Dio's 'dubiously discovered' version of it, was crafted during the Reformation. Prior to this, a manuscript which originated amongst a British exile community in Brittany was the accepted account of the island's history. It told a very different story of Britain's past and did not mention Dio's 'elephants in Essex' nor Tacitus' father in law, Agricola, nor a 'Roman romp around the island'.

A great book and well worth a read

[Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

An intriguing read providing a radical revision of Britain's Roman history that will undoubtedly ruffle a few feathers. It is colourfully written but provides an abundance of evidence and source material for those who enjoy digging a little deeper. A rare gem.