Kingdom
Risen from the ranks of the other men, resplendent atop his steed, he grips the reins of his mount as he grips the reins of the state. All hail the rixs! No longer will our people be held together in acts of building mounds and shifting soil about the dunum. Now the people, the state, the land all are focused upon the one, true king. His flanks protected by ever loyal horsemen he rides through his realm, handing out coins of gold and silver upon which he has stamped his sacred name and that of his ancestors. Not only to the health of our crops and harvest do we offer sacrifice, but now we offer them to the king also. For he, descended from heavenly heroes who walked upon earth, has constructed temples and sanctuaries to house the spirits of his ancestors. Now, at the head of his ever growing armies he expands our lands, bringing foreign folk beneath our yoke. The dreams, hopes and designs of our people now rest in the mind of one. All rests upon his dreams and wishes. All hail the rixs!
Historically, for much of the Iron Age it seems that, with the exception of a few areas such as the Arras culture of Yorkshire, most communities in Britain had been largely egalitarian. In the final two centuries of the pre-Roman Iron Age Britain (c.100-AD43), however, this changed. In several areas of Britain, namely south central and south eastern areas, but also areas of the north, several kingdoms emerged. It is possible that kingdoms or other aristocratically controlled groups emerged before but it is only in the Late Iron Age that we have textual, epigraphic and archaeological evidence to support the idea that kingdoms truly existed.
The exact reason behind the development of these kingdoms is still much debated, however, among the southern kingdoms at least, there are some recurring features which appear to have played a key part in this transformation. Late Iron Age Britain was subject to a variety of cultural, material and political influences which it had previously not been exposed to or at least exposed to on a much lower level prior. One of these was reinvigorated contact with the continent. At sites such as Hengistubry Head, Dorset extensive evidence for trade with the continent has been discovered. At first this trade was not on a particularly large scale and so is unlikely to have been as major a contributor to social and political transformation as previously theorised. By the 1st century AD, however, trade with the continent had certainly become a means by which the newly established elites were emphasising their power. In the south east of Britain, in the territory of the historical Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes, a new burial rite, the Aylesford-Swarling culture (after the two British towns where it was first excavated) developed. This cremation rite at times incorporated large amounts of continental material, such as at the impressive Lexden tumulus, where Italian bronzes, Gallo-Belgic ceramics and Mediterranean amphorae were added to the burial.
One influence which likely had a highly destabilising force upon the Middle Iron Age British societies, and probably enabled the establishment of the new kingdoms, was the introduction of coinage in the second century BC. This gold coinage was likely introduced by Belgae, possibly as diplomatic payments, and soon found currency in many parts of southern Britain. Gold had been unknown in Britain since the end of the Bronze Age and its sudden reappearance would probably have had a major impact on the societies it was adopted by. The use of coinage as a means of reinforcing kingship appears to have been most prevalent in in the southern and eastern kingdoms of the Atrebates and Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes and to a lesser degree the smaller polities of the Kantiakoi and Regnoi. Elsewhere coinage appears to have been less important. In the Ikenoi kingdom, for example, although there existed coinage bearing the name of the Romani client ruler Prasutagos, it appears that massive gold torques were more important in affirming royal power, whilst in the northern kingdom of the Brigantes, home of the Romani allied queen Kartimandua, coinage was not used at all. Instead older means of display appear to have been employed.
We know that coinage was integral to the creation of the new, Late Iron Age kingdoms in the southern regions as, after c.50BC, coinage began to be minted bearing the names of rulers, such as the Belgic fugitive ruler Kommios, in which the named individuals identified themselves as REX. We also know from this coinage that kingship was dynastic. Several coins, such as those of Karatakos of the Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes, or Tinkomaros, of the Atrebates, are marked with the name of the previous ruler, Kunobleinos and Kommios, respectively, and the letter F (for filius), indicating that the new king claimed to be the son of the previous king. In some of these cases it seems doubtful that the new ruler was in fact the son of the old, but it was clearly important to legitimise one's claim to the throne by claiming to be the son of the former ruler. At the end of the 1st century BC and start of the 1st century AD, the rulers of the Atrebates and Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes abandoned the old La Tène patterns and symbols which had existed on the earlier Belgic coinage and instead began to adopt Romani motifs and symbols. The first ruler to do this was the Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes king Taskiouanos. There is still debate as to why the British kings did this but it is possible they were receiving a Romani education as oboles (hostages) in Roma or sought to identify with the new, impressive power of Augustus. It is still unclear whether or not the coins were minted under the direct control of the kings or if the craftsmen who produced coinage were able to offer their services to multiple rulers at once. The distribution of coinage, however, has traditionally been interpreted as indicating the extent of individual ruler's power.
Along with minting coinage and control of imported goods, religion also seems to have played an important role in the creation of dynastic kingships, at least in the case of the Atrebates and Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes. At sites such like Hayling Island, Hampshire, sanctuaries were established which likely served as foci for some form of dynastic cult worship. Structures which have been interpreted as sanctuaries existed in the Middle Iron Age, such as those excavated in the confines of the major hill-forts in Wessex, but the new examples of the Late Iron Age appear to have followed continental layouts and been of a distinctly different character. It also appears that, in addition to supporting kingship claims with coinage, imported goods and a cult, the new rulers employed military might to some degree. Both Julius Caesar and Tacitus mention the existence of groups of retainer horsemen who were led by Gallic and German leaders, including the aforementioned Tacitus, in the 1st century BC and 1st century AD. These horsemen, known in Latin as comitatus, were oath sworn to their rulers and apparently very loyal. There is slight evidence in some parts of Britain to support the idea that such cavalrymen existed in the Late Iron Age. Some sites, such as Bury Hill II in Hampshire, or Gussage All Saints in Dorset, show evidence for an increase in horse remains or chariot fittings, respectively, whilst Caesar states that during his invasion of Britain he was confronted with 4,000 chariots of the British leader Kassiuellaunos.
It must be stressed that kingship was not a natural evolution for the Iron Age Britons. Some peoples, such as the Durotriges, Dumnonoi and Korieltauoi who bordered these late Iron Age kingdoms and were subject to the same influences and stimuli as the kingdoms, to a lesser degree, did not develop into kingdoms but instead continued to organise themselves in the same way they had done in previous centuries. In fact the majority of Late Iron Age British communities do not appear to have developed into kingdoms and thus kingship was actually an exception not the rule for Late Iron Age Britain.
Based on the numismatic evidence, assuming the distribution of coinage reflects the borders of the different kingdoms at different times, and the accounts of Romani authors, it does not appear that these Late Iron Age kingdoms were particularly stable. The key to stability in these kingdoms appears to have been strength and willpower of the individual ruler, rather than the inherent design of the state. The numismatic evidence suggests that the borders between the Atrebates and Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes shifted repeatedly, whilst smaller groups such as the Kantiakoi were often subjected by larger polities. Several British kings are recorded as having fled to the Romani seeking aid. The earliest, Mandubrakios of the Trinouantes, fled to Caesar during the latter's second invasion of Britain. Later Tinkomaros of the Atrebates also fled to Roma after the powerful Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes ruler Kunobleinos (who even went so far as to style himself king of Britain) dethroned him. The flight of one late Atrebates king, Uerika, was to have fateful consequences for the Britons. In need of a quick military victory to sure up his position as emperor, Claudius welcomed Uerika with open arms and promptly announced a conquest of Britain, claiming in part that he was helping the deposed Briton regain his throne.
Even with the Romani in control of Britain the various British kingdoms were not entirely stable. Some, such as the Atrebates under their new ruler Kogidubnos, did remain loyal Romani allies. Others, such as the Ikenoi were stable for a while, but then heavy handed Romani treatment caused them to rise up under Boudikka. In the north the sprawling realm of the Brigantes, despite being ruled by a Romani ally, Kartimandua, became so temperamental that the Romani had to evacuate their ally from the clutches of her former subjects. If anything the emergence of kingdoms in Britain served to provide the Romani with a useful figurehead whom they could control and, if necessary, replace with a local magistrate. Only in the north, where the population was too small and the social and political structure too fractious to support Romani government, did the Iron Age Britons continue to be free.
Strategy
This is the highest level factional government. Once the pre-requisites are fulfilled it can be quickly established throughout British Isles to reflect the rapid transformation of Late Iron Age Britain. Because there is an elite now, one can recruit the best Pritanoi units. On the other hand it has a major disadvantage. Like the historical Late Iron Age kingdoms, it a far more unstable than the hill-forts. A very influential leader, or larger garrisons, is needed to keep settlements under direct rule of the "Riks" in line. So be careful and decide wisely!