Copy 1, Volume 1

A topographical history of Surrey / By Edward Wedlake Brayley, assisted by John Britton, and E. W. Brayley, jun. The geological section by Gideon Mantell. The illustrative department under the superintendence of Thomas Allom.

  • Edward William Brayley
Date:
1850
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A topographical history of Surrey / By Edward Wedlake Brayley, assisted by John Britton, and E. W. Brayley, jun. The geological section by Gideon Mantell. The illustrative department under the superintendence of Thomas Allom. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    35/563 page 9
    are supposed to have been larger than the present counties of Surrey and Sussex. These kingdoms, or provinces, were governed by a number of military chieftains, who were principally of British, but some of Roman, extraction; and among whom raged a contention for the empire, whilst the Scots and the Piets, the common enemy, were continuing their predatory excursions, and reducing the country to the utmost distress. “Any degree of union amongst the Britons,” says Palgrave, “ must have enabled them to repel their enemies. The walls of the cities fortified by the Romans were yet strong and firm. The tactics of the legions were not forgotten. Bright armour was piled in the storehouses, and the serried line of spears might have been presented to the half-naked Scots and Piets, who could never have prevailed against their opponents. But the Britons had no inclination to lift the sword except against each other, and they lost all courage, except for faction,”80 when, according to Gildas, “the most ancient historian of this period,” in the year 446, they, in vain, made their last application to the Romans for assistance.21 Thus were the Britons left to their own resources; and thence, until the arrival of the Saxons, the island appears to have been distracted by the contests for dominion of ambitious competitors.22 Whilst the Romans held Britain in subjection, they divided their conquests into the six provinces respectively denominated Britannia Prima, Britannia Secunda, Flavia Caesariensis, Maxima Csesariensis, Valentia, and Yespasiana. Britannia Prima, which was so called, either from its proximity to Gaul, or from priority of conquest, “ comprehended all the country that lies to the south of the Thames and the Severn, and of a line drawn from Creeklade [Cricklade] or its vicinity on the one, to Berkeley or its neighbourhood upon the other river, which included eleven nations of the Britons, and con- tained about thirty-six stations subject to Rutupce or Richborough, the provincial capital,”23—and the seat of a Roman colony. In this division, therefore, the territories of the Regni of Surrey and Sussex must have been comprised, and those of the “ Bibroces or Rhemi, 20 Palgrave’s History of the Anglo-Saxons, p. 30. 21 Horsley’s Britannia Romana, p. 75. 22 The conquests of the Romans in Britain had been greatly facilitated by a similar state of disunion to that described in the text,—as we learn from Tacitus, who in his Life of Agricola, written a.d. 97, furnishes this information.— Olim Regibus parebant, nunc per Principes factionibus et studiis trahuntur: nec aliud adversus validissimas gentes pro nobis utilius, quam quod in commune non consulunt. Rams duabus tribusve eivitatibus ad propulsandum commune periculum conventus: ita, dum singula pugnant, universi vincuntur.”—Tacitus, Valpy’s edit. vol. vii. p. 3483. 23 Whitaker’s History of Manchester, 4to. vol. i. p, 60. VOL. I. C
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3