The Week of the Classics has started again. From 19 to 27 March, antiquity will be in the spotlight, this year with the theme To weapon!. Warfare and especially honorable victories were important in classical antiquity. Roman emperors were supposed to be victorious generals. How else could they guarantee the security of the Roman Empire? Some Roman emperors had it easy, but for the majority of Roman emperors there was nothing to celebrate. One of those rulers was Caligula (37 – 41).
Shortly after Caligula came to power, he tried to make up for his military inexperience by fighting on the northwestern frontiers of the Roman Empire like many of his forefathers. After a short campaign against Teutons, he was able to celebrate his first victory in the fall of 39:the surrender of Adminius (or Amminus), the son of the chief of an English tribe (the Catuvellauni). It seems that Adminius actively sought the support of the Romans after being exiled by his father (Cynobellinus).
Caligula in the Netherlands
A short time later, Caligula appears to have begun planning a major expedition to actually get hold of "the whole island." Adminius may have provided the emperor with information about England. It is not unlikely that he sought the Emperor's help to recapture his position in England. No one can find out what Admimius told the emperor, but everything seems to indicate that the Romans were preparing an invasion in the winter of 39/40.
For example, in this period the so-called Praetorium Agrippinae . was established in Valkenburg built:a military headquarters bearing the name of Caligula's mother Agrippina. Dendrochronological research (the dating of wood by research into growth rings) also makes clear that in 40/41 a fort was built near Alphen aan de Rijn. A fort seems to have been built in De Meern in the same period. Velsen's fleet base was also put into use again. Remarkably many coins from the time of Caligula have been found in Vechten, which was built much earlier. These finds indicate a reinforcement of the infrastructure leading to the coast of the North Sea, which should make it possible to transport and (at least as important) supply tens of thousands of soldiers.
It seems very likely that the emperor was personally involved in these activities. He came in any case in AD 40. ch. to the Netherlands. Wine barrels found in Vechten and Valkenburg explicitly mention the name of the vineyards of Caligula. If wine was brought from his private vineyard, the emperor himself would also have been present. And he will not have come alone. Emperors were surrounded by a large retinue and, especially in enemy areas immediately after a military campaign, accompanied by soldiers. In other words, after a short campaign in which an English "Crown Prince" surrendered, measures were taken that indicate a planned invasion, after which the Emperor himself went to the location where the military logistics were prepared. A raid on England seemed imminent.
Legion must collect shells
It didn't come. The Roman historian Suetonius, who as "Imperial Secretary" had access to a multitude of documents, writes the following:
Finally he arrayed his army on the shore of the Ocean in battle array, as if he wanted to bring the war to a definite end. Guns and siege equipment were deployed without anyone knowing or having the slightest idea what he was about to do. Suddenly he gave orders to collect shells, which he called "war booty of the Ocean, due to Capitol and Palatine," and fill with them their helmets and pockets. As a memorial to this victory, he built a very high tower, from which, like the Pharos, fire signals had to be given at night to show ships the way. And after promising the soldiers a donation of a hundred denarii, he said, as if he had surpassed all his predecessors in generosity:'Go joyful, go rich from here. (Suetonius, Caligula 46; translation D. den Hengst)
The situation seems clear and absurd. Caligula has his assembled troops collect shells, calling it a victory over the Ocean. The passage is beautifully evocative, and illustrative of the deeds of this mad emperor. Not surprisingly, many modern historians have disputed the passage's reliability. Some believe that the ancient authors are simply mistaken or deliberately portray the situation negatively, others that we do not understand the symbolism of the events.
One of the most original recent suggestions in the first category assumes that the conchas the soldiers had to collect should not be translated as "shells," but were military slang for small boats. These were English boats, the argument continues, which had been defeated in preparation for the invasion, leaving the sea clear of enemies. The triremes that Caligula would later carry in triumph in Rome were the ships that had swept the Channel. It just might be true, though nowhere else in ancient literature is the term "shells" used for "boats." And how boats can be transported in helmets remains unclear – that must have been a deliberate falsification of history by (the indeed biased) Suetonius and Aurelius Victor.
Featured by the editors
MedicineWhat are the microplastics doing in my sunscreen?!
AstronomySun, sea and science
BiologyExpedition to melting land
Symbolic victory over ocean
If the text is taken literally (and as historically accurate), there are two common scenarios. The first suggests that Caligula was aiming for an invasion but that his soldiers were (literally) getting cold feet. The limited success of the previous campaign could have played a role in this. This seems to be derived from a passage by the famous historian Tacitus, who does not mention the events on the beach:
Caligula has had plans to invade Britain, that much is certain. But, of course, he quickly changed his mind and regretted it; moreover, his great undertakings against Germania had come to nothing. (Tacitus, Agricola 13; translation by V. Hunink).
This probably all took place in February or March of 40. Given the weather, that is much too early in the year for a crossing. This reconstruction is therefore not very convincing.
The second scenario is that we underestimate the symbolic victory over the Ocean. In this analysis, the emperor challenges the sea (as Suetonius relates) by deploying soldiers and siege equipment along the coast. He then sails a bit out to sea and then returns ashore. This is reminiscent of Alexander the Great, who, according to his biographer Arrian, died in 325 BC. entered the Ocean at Gedrosia, "especially to say that he had sailed the Great Sea of India." Alexander returns after a short time and sacrifices bulls to Poseidon.
Victory over and pacification of the sea go hand in hand with the great Macedonian conqueror. So why would Caligula's similar behavior be insane? The shells collected were symbolic loot gained from the gods, the aforementioned triremes brought to Rome for the victory march emphasized victory over the sea (and could be reused in reenacted naval battles in the capital), and there was even a real English prince to lead in triumph.
This last scenario seems the most convincing to me. Whether Caligula had in mind an invasion to be carried out later remains somewhat unclear in this construction, but seems likely given the military-logistical activities on the Rhine and the passage of Tacitus. The symbolic victory in this scenario precedes a planned invasion. The murder of Caligula would prevent this real English campaign, leaving only the symbolic victory.
Battle at Katwijk?
Where did the battle against the shells take place? We know that the emperor was in the Netherlands, and had just led military operations against Germans. Suetonius explicitly states that the emperor deployed his troops "as if he wanted to bring the war to a definite end." That must have been the 'war' against the Germans. The battle against the shells could have happened on the beach near Katwijk.
The General History of the Fatherland from 1840, by J.P. Arend and O. van Rees, speak of a tradition in which 'the submerged remains of a tower, in the vicinity of Katwijk, by the fishermen of that place, from ancient times until recently, Kalla's tower or just Kala and Kaljaart which is an apparent abbreviation of Caligula'.
Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century drawings show remains of Roman Katwijk (Lugdunum), later known as the Brittenburg, but no tower. Archaeological research that took place in January and February 2014 on the occasion of the reinforcement of the flood defenses along the coast near Katwijk revealed no Roman remains, probably as a result of coastal erosion.
Popular wisdom that a building that has since fallen was called Kalla's tower, does not prove that Caligula has developed local construction activities there. It does mean that in the time the ruins were still visible, a connection was made with an emperor who had a bad image. This connection is difficult to explain without an underlying historical reality. It is therefore in any case quite possible that the high-profile 'battle' that Suetonius described took place on the beach at Katwijk. Caligula had thousands of soldiers fight the sea, then spoke of a Roman victory. It was celebrated extensively in Rome, with the boats in which the emperor had sailed up the North Sea as part of the triumphal procession. Ancient literature does not tell whether the accompanying soldiers triumphantly displayed shells as spoils of war.