Strabo’s account of British geography was much the same as Caesar’s and Tacitus’. He wrote that there were four main crossing points between Gaul and Britain, beginning at the mouths of the rivers Seine, Loire, Garonne and the Rhine. Although Strabo seemed to write with a moderate degree of accuracy (or at least with detail, even if not correct) about the geographical location of Britain, he was much less certain where the British landscape was concerned. He simple stated that the island was “low-lying and wooded” but “with many hilly areas”. This appears to be more than a slight contradiction in terms, and an alternative way to point out that Strabo knew next to nothing about the landscape of mainland Britain. He was similarly vague when discussing the climate, although fairly truthful; he said that it tended to rain rather than snow, that mist was common, and that it was likely that for days at a time, the sun would only be visible for a matter of hours at noontide.
Agricola would have most likely passed on the information of the areas that he visited around the country, hence the much more elaborate accounts of the various aspects of the British landscape offered by Tacitus in the Agricola. Agricola also made expeditions into northern Britain and Caledonia, so Tacitus was able to give a much more detailed (and truthful) description than could have been offered by Caesar or Strabo. Tacitus described the climate as “objectionable,” and (like Caesar and Strabo) wrote that there was frequent rain and mist but no extreme cold. He offered an (now rather outdated and most certainly untrue) explanation for the brightness of the British nights – that the ends of the Earth were flat and could therefore not allow the darkness to reach the height of the sky and its stars. However, it is unfair to condemn him for this particular point, as, at this point in time, it was common belief that the ends of the Earth were flat, and that Britain was at the end of the Earth (as the Romans had not reached beyond Britain and assumed that no land lay to the north of it). If this is taken into account, Tacitus’ explanation does seem to be at least moderately plausible. He also wrote that the British day was longer than was normal in the Roman world. Upon the understanding that all days, whether Roman or not, would have been the standard twenty-four hours long, it is once again necessary here to disagree with Tacitus’ opinions.
Roman authors all agreed that there were great differences in the appearances of the various inhabitants of Britain, and they all came to much the same conclusions. Strabo gave a rather derogatory description of the Celts, naming them “bandy-legged” and “ungainly in build”. It is likely that this was written from a very pro-Roman perspective – it is not so likely that all the inhabitants of Britain had bandy legs. Strabo also said that the British were not as yellow-haired as the Gauls, which was probably true, and dark hair is predominant in this country now, and probably always was. Caesar, preoccupied with detailing his military achievements (and failures), wrote little concerning the appearance of the Celts. Tacitus was more detailed, and suggested that the reddish hair and large limbs of the Caledonians proclaimed a Germanic origin, the swarthy faces and curling hair of the Silures could be due to invading Spaniards in ancient times, and the southern inhabitants of the island resembled the Gauls opposite them. Perhaps his explanation for the origins of the Caledonians is truthful, but his suggestion that Spaniards invaded, hence the appearance of the western Celts, seems to have been founded simply on the fact that he believed Spain lay directly to the west of Britain, and therefore the truth of this statement is doubtful. It is also possible that the differences in appearances were caused due to the differences in climate and environment around the island, and that its native people were the original inhabitants.
The Romans authors also made a point of enhancing the apparent barbarism of the natives. Strabo wrote that they “are well supplied with milk but do not know how to make cheese; they know nothing of planting crops or of farming in general.” It is unclear whether or not the Celts knew how to make cheese, but Strabo was most certainly wrong in his assertion that the British knew nothing of farming, as archaeological evidence has proven much the contrary (i.e. the discovery of the remains of items which would have had an agricultural use). Both Caesar and Tacitus spoke of the locals having grown corn. We know for certain that the Celts were primarily a farming people, who also knew how to fight (as rivalries between tribes were common and fighting could break out frequently).
To conclude, the Roman authors thought that the Celts were rather similar to the continental Gauls, but more barbaric in nature and old-fashioned. Caesar and Tacitus wrote that the Britons were still fighting in chariots, which were almost a thing of the past in the rest of the Roman world, and the Britons did not have a fixed coinage, whereas the Romans had an established currency. Therefore, the British economy would have been fairly unstable and fluctuating.
Strabo, having no contact with the Celts in a battle situation, did not comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the British army. Caesar and Tacitus both wrote that the strength of the British army was in their infantry, and both writers made it clear that the British method of fighting a battle was very different to the Roman ideal – the Britons employed stealth tactics and were sneaky in combat – Tacitus called them “cowardly”, as they made an attack on Agricola’s army at night time. However, this is likely to have been Roman bias, as the night attack had certainly had the desired effect for the Britons, wiping out one third of Agricola’s men stationed with him. Caesar wrote in more detail of the way in which the Britons fought with the chariots, and what he wrote does appear to be fairly accurate, in that he credits the Britons when they were in a “winning” situation. If he had been more biased against the Celts, it is unlikely that he would have given them the credit that he did. However, it is undoubted that every Roman author did have a pro-Roman bias.
The Roman authors all wrote of the Celtic tribal system. Strabo does not appear to have known a great deal about the system; he wrote only that “they are ruled by their own kings” which is vague and only makes sense after having read accounts from other authors. Caesar only referred to the tribes and their leaders as if his readers would have already know about the tribal system in Britain, only elaborating on the actual business of the tribes and not of the way in which they were organised. He did make references to the areas inhabited by the various tribes which he encountered, saying for example that the Trinovantes were at the time one of (if not the) strongest tribes in south-east Britain, which we do know to be true.
Caesar’s account of the level of civilisation of the Britons appears to be where his Roman bias slipped into place. He stated that the most civilised inhabitants of the island lived in Kent, a purely maritime district. As regards “most civilised”, it is unlikely that this is true. However, we do know that Kent was a major port for merchants and overseas traders, and therefore a lot of Gauls would enter the area, perhaps influencing the locals. It is possible that the citizens of Kent were more similar to the Gauls, due to their amount of contact with them, and Caesar may have believed this to be a sign of civilisation, as the Gauls’ way of life was considered not entirely uncivilised by the Romans. The further away from Kent and contact with the Gauls, the more uncivilised the Britons became. This would have appeared fairly logical to Caesar.
The Celts certainly engaged in foreign trading with the continent. Kent was the main port (as mentioned by Caesar), and goods such as ivory bracelets and necklaces, amber and glassware and other “petty trifles” were being imported from overseas (according to Strabo). Tacitus mentioned that Britain yielded gold, silver and other metals – there is archaeological evidence showing that tin was being produced and exported from Cornwall, although researchers have also shown that there was no silver to be found in Britain.
Caesar also wrote that the Celts dyed their bodies with woad, and shaved all body hair except the head and the upper lip. It is unclear quite what the Celtic preferences were with regards to body hair, but we do know that it was not the entire body that was dyed, but only parts of it. Another interesting but false gem shared with us by Caesar was that Celtic women were shared between groups of ten to twelve men, especially between the male relations of a family. There is no archaeological or other literary evidence to support this statement.
Tacitus, like Caesar, wrote little of the actual tribal system in the Agricola, and he was more explanatory where specific encounters with specific tribes was concerned. He did write that “the Britons make no distinction of sex in their leaders”. This is not quite true – although Boudicca was queen of the Iceni tribe, female leaders were not quite so well accepted as male ones, as was seen in the case of Cartimandua of the Brigantes. Following an adulterous affair with her husband’s armour-bearer, Vellocatus, the people of the tribe were outraged and campaigned for Venutius (her husband) to be their leader.
The Romans did not expand much on Celtic politics. The politics of the British tribes appear to have been purely internal affairs, sorted out either entirely within one tribe, or, if a dispute were to be settled involving two tribes, a battle would take place, the winners of the battle winning what they were campaigning for. The Celts did not have a governmental system prior to Roman occupation that included the entire country, and did not have a specific diplomatic political system.
The Celtic religion was druidism, a pagan religion. Caesar wrote that the two “privileged” classes were the druids and the knights, and that the druids officiated at the worship of the gods, regulated public and private sacrifices and gave rulings on religious questions. If one wished to contact a god, this would have been done through a druid (or druidess – the Celts did not seem to have preferences over their religious leaders). It is uncertain whether the druids did, indeed, conduct human sacrifices (as was suggested by Caesar). Caesar seemed to be fairly knowledgeable about the druids, and said that their religion forbade them to commit their teachings to writing, although they were literate. Archaeological evidence supports this – druidic calendars have been discovered, but no druidic doctrines. Caesar elaborated on the method of studying the druidic religion, and also of the place of the druids in political situations, perhaps the only true form of politics that all the Celts shared.
The druids were an immense power base in Britain, due to the fact that the country was highly religious, and the gods could only be contacted through the druids. The druids also acted as judges in many legal matters. They were seen as a threat by Caesar and Agricola, who both launched campaigns on their headquarters in Anglesey.
To conclude, the literary evidence that exists of the Celts that was written by Roman authors gives a fairly detailed image of the Celtic lifestyle, although it is, naturally, subject to an amount of bias. Archaeology has supported a large amount of the evidence given to us by the Romans, and therefore it is at least possible that to a large extent, the assertions of the Roman authors were fairly truthful.