As long ago as 1956, in his book Seeing Roman Britain, Leonard Cottrell commented that ‘there have been so many books on Roman Britain … one needs some justification for adding yet another’. Since the 1950s, it seems that every new work summarising the story of Britannia has at some stage felt the need for self-flagellatory apology, as if trying to excuse the unnecessary addition of ‘yet another’ study of the province. This is a curious phenomenon and one that I do not see in the academic literature of any other period of British history, even the excessively studied Tudor dynasty. There is, of course, much that can be said about any given time period and, thanks to the nature of archaeological discovery, there is constantly something new to say; some alternative angle to examine and discuss. In 1956, Cottrell felt that, given the number of printed works on Roman Britain, it was important to justify ‘what this book is about and, almost as important, what it is not’. With regard to these two new contributions to the study of Britannia, by Pat Southern and John Waite, it is also important to explain what both seem keen to achieve and what, ultimately, they do not.

First, it should be noted that, contrary to their respective blurbs, neither book sets out to create an alternative discourse nor radically re-examine the Roman past; in fact, despite many new archaeological discoveries and theories, both works are very much set within established orthodoxy. A sense of the traditional is evident from the outset, both books suffering to some degree from a sense of over-familiarity: the title of S.'s tome sharing that with Guy de la Bédoyère's book of 2006, the sense of déjà vu continuing as both have images of Hadrian's Wall on the dust jacket, while W.'s has a cover that deliberately echoes John Peddie's 1987 work Invasion: the Roman Conquest of Britain, with the Ermine Street Guard striding in front of dramatic, primary-coloured, cloud-strewn sky. Such similarities unfairly detract from the textual worth of both books, as they immediately invite comparison with these earlier works and do not, at first sight, inspire confidence that anything new will be said within.

The story presented by S. follows a tried and tested (and somewhat predictable) format, commencing with ‘First Contact’ (the campaigns of Caesar and tribal development to the eve of the Claudian invasion), ‘Invasion and Conquest’ (Claudius to the eve of the Boudiccan revolt), ‘Rebellion and Reconstruction’ (Boudicca to the year of the three emperors), and so on to ch. 12, ‘Transition and New Beginning’ (Constantine III to St Patrick). S. writes in a clear and fluid style, explaining complicated events in an engaging fashion. This is, as the title suggests, however, very much a history in the traditional sense, focusing upon dates, events and a predominantly male, militarised Britain, archaeological evidence relating to the normal and everyday rarely getting much of a look in. The history presented here is therefore new almost solely in the sense of it being the most recently published and, as such, it will certainly appeal to a general audience unfamiliar or largely unaware of Britain's Roman heritage (and all power to it for that), although academics and researchers will find little here that is challenging. Illustrative material is unfortunately restricted to a single section which, as with the text, focuses primarily upon military establishments, rather than the towns, villas, industries and richly diverse artistic culture of the province. Maps and plans are few and are sadly confined to the central section, rather than being distributed more helpfully (for a general audience) at relevant points in the narrative. In-text referencing is absent, although sections on further reading, ‘what the ancient authors said’, glossary and places to visit are an invaluable resource to the uninitiated.

One curious feature is the presence of ‘text boxes’ liberally sprinkled throughout the book. In the context of a more populist project, information dumps make perfect sense, but in the context of this book, however, such inserts are intrusive, completely disrupting the narrative flow. The addition of bite-sized blocks of information could have been handled far more effectively if the book itself had been presented in a larger, almost ‘coffee-table style’ format.

W.'s book covers the first two chapters of S.'s, the military expeditions of Caesar and the two-stage invasion of Claudius, in considerably more detail. His book is, in essence, a reboot of Peddie's 1987 work, attempting to resolve issues surrounding the strategy and logistics of the invading Roman army. Consideration of the problems faced by troops on the move at sea and on the land are considered well and intelligently discussed, but there is a (Claudian) elephant in the room: namely that everything that is (and has been) stated with confidence with regard to the siting of harbours, fortifications and battlefields during the campaign of a.d. 43 is ultimately pure conjecture. Unfortunately, the near total lack of hard evidence concerning the conquest on the ground is neatly skipped over by W. and, despite the genuinely interesting ‘belt-and-braces’ approach to the actual problems associated with the landings, the Richborough/Medway/Thames/Colchester model of subjugation that has been espoused for decades, here remains stubbornly in place.

Thirty years ago, Richard Reece noted that ‘text books on Roman Britain to date make the subject appear like a nice sand pit in which toddlers can safely be left to play’ adding that he was thankful that it is instead ‘a wild, overgrown garden in which anything may happen’. Although the two works cited here essentially present the Roman past as a familiar, child-friendly, toy-laden, sand-filled play pit, there are occasionally hints of a darker, adventure-filled wilderness at the margins; an overgrown, unexplored space that is desperately crying out for attention … one only needs to push open the rusty gate that separates the two in order to explore the exciting and unfamiliar world beyond. I, for one, have got my torch.