“… there is a very good chance that Caesar’s ‘Commentaries’ did not
survive, and that ‘Bellum Gallicum’ (BG), the title it is known as today, was
the work of other writers. Historians are wrong to treat it as gospel and to
suppose this was the true voice of Caesar”.
Ben Hamilton
King Alfred the Great may have been the culprit, according
to Ben Hamilton:
Caesar conquering Britain a 9th century invention by Alfred the Great
Saxon king fabricated 54 BC invasion to replace Viking-friendly heir and
protect England from the Danes
August 16th, 2017 6:41 pm| by Ben Hamilton
The Saxon king Alfred, a late ninth century ruler who unified several
kingdoms of England and thwarted the Danish Vikings from taking over at every
turn, is commonly referred to as ‘the Great’ by historians.
But maybe ‘the Magnificent’ club of Suleiman, Lorenzo de’ Medici and co
should make room for one more, contends Rebecca Huston, a former National
Geographic Channel producer and American screenwriter who after ten years of
original research and analysis believes the king single-handedly saved the country
from being permanently absorbed into Scandinavia.
Never mind a one-nation Brexit, this was a one-man Brepel!
Caesar the non-conqueror
This wasn’t through force. Alfred simply demonstrated that the pen is mightier than the sword. Over a thousand years before the exploits of Bletchley Park saw off one army of foreign invaders, he delved into old manuscripts to stop another.
This wasn’t through force. Alfred simply demonstrated that the pen is mightier than the sword. Over a thousand years before the exploits of Bletchley Park saw off one army of foreign invaders, he delved into old manuscripts to stop another.
By doctoring a Latin version of one of the ancient world’s most famous
writings, and altering several Old English manuscripts, he was able to convince
his council of nobles that his son Edward was the rightful heir to his throne,
not his nephew Æthelwold, a Saxon susceptible to alliances with the Danes.
And the astonishing upshot of this discovery is that Julius Caesar
neither invaded nor conquered Britain in 54 BC.
Alfred the great storyteller
Along with the collected letters of Cicero, the memoirs written by Caesar while he was conquering France and other areas of central Europe in the fifth decade of the first century BC is believed by many to be one of the few manuscripts to have survived the period.
Along with the collected letters of Cicero, the memoirs written by Caesar while he was conquering France and other areas of central Europe in the fifth decade of the first century BC is believed by many to be one of the few manuscripts to have survived the period.
But there is a very good chance that Caesar’s ‘Commentaries’ did not
survive, and that ‘Bellum Gallicum’ (BG), the title it is known as today, was
the work of other writers. Historians are wrong to treat it as gospel and to
suppose this was the true voice of Caesar. But many do, and therefore they duly
accept that he invaded Britain.
Ancient writings only survived because they were painstakingly recopied
by hand, and also translated, mostly by monks at monasteries when it was judged
the current version was becoming a little worse for wear. This made them
vulnerable to change.
As an avid translator of Latin texts into Old English with all his
kingdom’s manuscripts at his disposal, Alfred was ideally placed to meddle, and
Huston claims she has found compelling evidence among 6,000 pages of ancient
and medieval texts that Alfred fabricated Caesar’s two ‘invasions’ of Britain
in 55 and 54 BC and added them to what would become BG. In reality, she says,
the first ‘invasion’ did not take place, and the second was a passing visit.
Many academics concur the king of Wessex, Kent, Essex, Sussex and the
western part of Mercia also translated and revised five old English works –
including translations of ‘Ecclesiastical History’, an eighth century work by
the Venerable Bede, and ‘History Against the Pagans’, a fifth century work by
Orosius.
Significantly the old English versions of the pair’s works include
details about Caesar’s invasions, but the Latin versions do not.
Bede, for example, relied on the sixth century monk Gildas for all of
his early British history, but Gildas never mentioned Caesar or his invasions,
suggesting the inclusion is not Bede’s work.
Tellingly, the earliest-known copy of BG dates back to the last quarter
of the ninth century, coinciding with the latter years of Alfred’s life.
Traces of the Englishman
“Alfred was the anonymous author of ‘Bellum Gallicum’ because highly-specific details about Alfred’s own life appear in the text that could not have been written by Caesar nor be known prior to Alfred’s lifetime,” Huston told CPH POST.
“Alfred was the anonymous author of ‘Bellum Gallicum’ because highly-specific details about Alfred’s own life appear in the text that could not have been written by Caesar nor be known prior to Alfred’s lifetime,” Huston told CPH POST.
Huston points out that many scholars, including Germany’s Heinrich
Meusel and Alfredus Klotz, have shared doubts over the authenticity of the
passages – with Klotz suggesting that a “pseudo-Caesar” added false details,
and Meusel questioning why Caesar wrote like an Englishman.
Historians have for centuries been stumbling over the truth, but have
either not noticed or ignored the evidence – in some cases, suggests Huston,
because Alfred was believed to be the spiritual founder of Oxford University
and it would have been highly controversial!
For example, the early 20th century work ‘The Cambridge History of
English and American Literature in 18 Volumes’ acknowledges Alfred’s
idiosyncratic style of drawing on his experience in describing the military
exploits of others, while 19th century scholar Charles Plummer contends that
the pious Alfred could not resist adding Christian elements, claiming that
‘History against the Pagans’ shows a “remarkable divergence from historical
fact”.
Additionally, as a champion of indirect discourse (when he wasn’t saying
“Veni, Vidi, Vici”!), Caesar would have never lapsed into the first person, as
is often the case in BG – such a writing style was abhorrent to him and he even
included his dislike in a book on classical Latin grammar.
Spun like Keyser Söze
Huston’s groundbreaking analysis of BG has yielded 120 examples of Alfred’s idiosyncratic writing style (including word choice, verbose style and peculiar errors) along with 40 references to his own life and times.
Huston’s groundbreaking analysis of BG has yielded 120 examples of Alfred’s idiosyncratic writing style (including word choice, verbose style and peculiar errors) along with 40 references to his own life and times.
For example, BG records that Caesar arrived in 54 BC on clinker-built
ships – a vessel never used by the Romans and not by anyone until the third
century – which were familiar to Alfred as they featured heavily in his own
West Saxon fleet.
In addition, the description of the Britons in BG closely matches that
of the Danes in the ninth century, while Caesar’s experience fighting them is
similar to Alfred’s against the Vikings. The ancient Brits, according to BG,
wore animal skins and did not eat grain – a claim contradicted by modern
archaeologists.
Throughout BG, Celtic and Old English terms frequently appear, geography
is referenced that is six centuries premature and anachronistic errors are made
regarding Roman weapons not yet invented nor used.
For example, the Latin term ‘equites’ is used to mean knights, but in
Caesar’s day it meant money-lenders, while the four kings of Kent who
surrendered to Caesar were family members of Alfred’s, and one of the
surrendering British tribes, the Ancalites, is named after a sixth century
shield used by Alfred’s ancestors.
“Similar to the mastermind character Keyser Söze in ‘The Usual
Suspects’, Alfred adroitly spun the tale of Caesar’s British ‘invasions’ by
fictionalising objects likely found in his immediate environment,” contended
Huston.
A lack of evidence
No archaeological evidence has ever been found in southern England to confirm the Romans under Caesar fought the Britons as claimed in BG, with modern historian Richard Warner (in ‘British Archaeology’, 1995) asserting that the only reason people believe Caesar invaded Britain is because of his memoirs.
No archaeological evidence has ever been found in southern England to confirm the Romans under Caesar fought the Britons as claimed in BG, with modern historian Richard Warner (in ‘British Archaeology’, 1995) asserting that the only reason people believe Caesar invaded Britain is because of his memoirs.
Not one ancient writer prior to Alfred mentions the invasion – not even
Suetonius, who as the first official Roman biographer of Caesar and head of the
Imperial Archives in Rome, had access to Caesar’s personal papers, daily
military diaries and reports to the Roman Senate.
In 36 of Cicero’s letters from 54 BC, of which some were written
directly to Caesar, not one mentions an invasion or fighting or transport problems
despite many references to Britain. Cicero had good reason to be interested, as
his brother took part in Caesar’s visit.
There is no mention of Caesar conquering Britain in the work of three
prominent first century AD writers: the Roman historian Tacitus, the Greek
essayist Plutarch, and the Roman poet Lucan, who observed that “Caesar came
looking for the British and then terrified, turned tail.”
There is no evidence of the Roman camp which would have stood for three
months and housed 25,000 soldiers, the battlesites – others have yielded
countless finds – or the voyage over.
According to BG, 800 ships were launched from Port Itius in France in 54
BC – a location that would struggle to see off more than a hundred, according
to a French admiral serving in the Napoleonic Wars.
A five-year mission launched in 2000, which was co-sponsored by the
British Museum, tried to find the remains of 52 ships that supposedly sunk when
Caesar ‘invaded’ Britain (12 in 55 and 40 in 54 BC), searching predominantly
seven miles northeast of the cliffs of Dover – the area identified by BG.
BG also details the loss of 120 Roman anchors, of which each one weighed
680 kg and measured 2.8 metres across. The mission used SONAR technology that
can identify a teapot at a depth of 500 metres, but nothing was found.
Ancient shipwrecks and anchors will deteriorate faster in warmer waters,
but while dozens have been found in the Mediterranean, not one has been
discovered in British waters.
Mission accomplished
Before his accession Alfred had promised his predecessor, his brother Æthelred I, that the dying king’s sons would take precedence over his own offspring and one of them, Æthelwold, was accordingly the senior heir.
Before his accession Alfred had promised his predecessor, his brother Æthelred I, that the dying king’s sons would take precedence over his own offspring and one of them, Æthelwold, was accordingly the senior heir.
Under Saxon law the kingship was not Alfred’s gift to bestow. But he did
his best to make his son Edward the most logical heir, leaving him the bulk of
his lands and even having the bones of his predecessor moved from Steyning, an
estate left to Æthelwold, to Winchester, his capital.
Alfred’s citation from BG helped to strengthen his claim to the same
rights and responsibilities as Caesar, the ‘conqueror’ of the five territories
he ruled over, because of an additional lie that no records support: that he
had been consecrated in Rome by Pope Leo IV during a pilgrimage he made aged
four in 853.
Accordingly, he claimed he had inherited the ancient right of a
conqueror to name his successor, thus superseding his agreement with his
brother. Furthermore, by claiming the ancient nobles of Britain accepted
Caesar’s choice of ruler of the exact same kingdom Alfred presided over, he
could argue Roman authority superseded that of the Saxons, and that the ancient
right was inseparable from the land.
“The anonymously-forged ‘memoirs’ were good enough to fool Alfred’s
Latin-illiterate council of nobles,” contended Huston.
Edward duly succeeded Alfred in 899, prompting Æthelwold to launch a
rebellion backed by Scandinavian allies, which he died fighting in three years
later. Edward’s grandson Edgar the Peaceful went on to unify the kingdoms of
England in 957, although this was shortlived.
While the Danes did eventually conquer the whole of England in 1013,
their 29-year rule was not long enough to permanently absorb the country into a
Nordic empire. Had Alfred not intervened, they could have ruled England for 143
years, or even longer.
