Posts: 168
Threads: 9
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
0
I am becoming more and more interested in this time period. However, most of the materials I am finding relates to the quest for Arthur.--not interested in that. What I am interested in is the political/military situation in Britain after Constantine III crosses the channel and before the Saxons invade (assuming you believe in the invasion theory). For instance, when it is stated that Constantine III withdrew the last of the legions, does that mean all troops under roman command were withdrawn or only "roman" troops? Did the locals form replacement troops? Did they immediately abandon the wall? How did the locals govern themselves? Did they still consider themselves Roman subjects? Etc, etc.....
Looking to be pointed in the right direction. Thanks.
There are some who call me ......... Tim?
Posts: 672
Threads: 7
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
3
That is an essentially unanswerable question. Historians are at best making educated guesses. There are mentions - in the stories of St Germanus and his visit to Britain and Gildas - of 'magistrates' or 'chiefs of regions' and also of tyrants. I think it possible that in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Constantine III that the senior civil magistrates tried to form a government, and may have been successful for some years. However, as soon as people with access to fighting men realised their potential for asserting leadership themselves, then any Romanised civil magistracy would fall. The obvious pool of leaders with access to fighting men would have been any officers in charge of the rump of Roman soldiery (probably limitanei troops) possibly including such figures as Coelius (Old King Cole) in the north, if he is historical, chieftains on the fringes of Roman Britain with their own armed tribesmen (Cunedda etc.) and lastly any rich British noble who could pay for Saxon mercenaries (perhaps including the ancestors of Cerdic of Wessex, that enigmatic Saxon with a British name). Gildas mentions a 'Superbus Tyrannus' so there seems to have been at least one warlord who managed to assert some measure of widespread rule in sub-Roman Britain.
Martin
Fac me cocleario vomere!
Posts: 1,002
Threads: 30
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
1
"Medicus" Matt Bunker
[size=150:1m4mc8o1]WURSTWASSER![/size]
Posts: 2,784
Threads: 313
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
1
Some good books there from Matt. Another worth reading is Gerrard J, 2013, The ruin of Roman Britain: an archaeological perspective, Cambridge University Press.
He puts forward the idea of a series of "small worlds" - ie small self governing areas - after the collapse of central Imperial authority. Think of an organisational pyramid where the apex rots away and disappears. Some authority figures remained - for example some bishoprics appeared to have maintained power ( eg Lincoln). So we have a complex series of mini states following the systemic collapse of Rome, with mixed and shifting alliances, Certainly not a simple Celt v Saxon fight..
Posts: 1,976
Threads: 40
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation:
102
Quote:Some good books to track down if you want to read around the subject (and there are only a few good ones, small islands in a sea of pseudo-historical crap):-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Civitas-Kingdom-...0718514653
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/18526...161&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/End-Roman-Britai...F8&sr=&qid=
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Worlds-Arthur-Fa...=pd_cp_b_0
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Decline-Fall...=pd_cp_b_2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Britannia-Failed...QTMHVZ503T
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/07509...788&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Celt-Saxon-Peter...61&sr=1-13
Some better than others but between them you'll get a good grounding in the subject matter and the different schools of thought when it comes to interpreting the paucity of evidence.
If I wanted to read only one or two of those, which would you recommend?
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Posts: 672
Threads: 7
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
3
C. J. Arnold, (1984) Roman Britain to Saxon England: An Archaeological Study, Croom Helm,
Is a good overview of archaeological evidence, somewhat dated though it is.
Catherine Hills (2003) Origins of the English, Duckworth. Is the best all round review, including as it does historical, archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence.
Neither book goes into historico-political minutiae, however. The absence of political reconstructions of dubious value is refreshing.
Martin
Fac me cocleario vomere!
Posts: 2,784
Threads: 313
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
1
Its a really fascinating period- welcome to our world!
Personally, I'd go for :-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Decline-Fall...=pd_cp_b_2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/End-Roman-Britai...F8&sr=&qid=
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Civitas-Kingdom-...0718514653 (old but a classic)
(I'm not a great fan of Peter Beresford Ellis' books btw).
Well worth reading these articles too by Harke- his homw page with downloadable papers are here https://uni-tuebingen.academia.edu/HeinrichHarke/Papers
Härke, H. (2003) Population replacement or acculturation? An archaeological perspective on population and migration in post-Roman Britain. In: Tristram, H.L.C. (ed.) The Celtic Englishes III. Winter, Heidelberg, pp. 13-28
Härke, H. 2007. Invisible Britons: Gallo-Romans and Russians: perspectives on culture change. In: Higham, J. (ed.) Britons in Anglo-Saxon England. Boydell, Woodbridge, pp. 57-67
Härke H, 2011 Anglo-Saxon Immigration and Ethnogenesis, Medieval Archaeology, 55
Posts: 168
Threads: 9
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
0
Thank you for the recommendations.The "End of Roman Britain" book looks to be very politically charged, but I think I will give it a gander, as I am interested in the thesis that the economy/infrastructure in Britain was just an imperial construct.
One of my frustrations from what I have read so far is the almost diametrically opposed views of scholars/writers. Either you accept Gildas' Saxon Adventus hook, line and sinker, or you subscribe to the theory that there was just a peaceful intermingling of immigrants that had been going on for years and all the written sources are pure fantasy. The "Worlds of Arthur" book is decent, but IMHO, the author commits the sin he rails against--i.e. he selectively uses written sources to support his theories; but, he also is prone to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by entirely discounting certain sources. Maybe I am wading into perilous waters, but I do not understand why the fact that historical writers had an agenda means that everything they wrote about was made up?
Surely, the truth has to lie somewhere in the middle. The different chronicles, and even continental sources, all refer to the time as one of military conflict and political turmoil. From my limited reading, what seems most likely to me is that Saxon federates who were already present in the east revolted; there was a long period of localized warfare with shifting alliances that was not simply british v. saxon, but at the end, the saxons became the new governing elites; bred out the existing population; and the remainder adopted their culture and material fashion.
But, I now have a new reading wish list for x-mas...thanks again.
There are some who call me ......... Tim?
Posts: 712
Threads: 13
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
46
Sorry I was late on this topic but another book which covered later Roman Britain is “Roman Britain"
by Peter Salway, written in 1981 I think. He covers the rise & fall of Constantine III & the British general Gerontius more than a lot of other authors on late Roman Britain & except for one mention of Cunedda keeps to the facts & sources and doesn't theorize about Arthur. Generally covers from pre Roman Britain to the Saxon takeover.but is about 800 pages/
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Posts: 672
Threads: 7
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
3
Quote: One of my frustrations from what I have read so far is the almost diametrically opposed views of scholars/writers. Either you accept Gildas' Saxon Adventus hook, line and sinker, or you subscribe to the theory that there was just a peaceful intermingling of immigrants that had been going on for years and all the written sources are pure fantasy. The "Worlds of Arthur" book is decent, but IMHO, the author commits the sin he rails against--i.e. he selectively uses written sources to support his theories; but, he also is prone to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by entirely discounting certain sources. Maybe I am wading into perilous waters, but I do not understand why the fact that historical writers had an agenda means that everything they wrote about was made up?
Surely, the truth has to lie somewhere in the middle. The different chronicles, and even continental sources, all refer to the time as one of military conflict and political turmoil. From my limited reading, what seems most likely to me is that Saxon federates who were already present in the east revolted; there was a long period of localized warfare with shifting alliances that was not simply british v. saxon, but at the end, the saxons became the new governing elites; bred out the existing population; and the remainder adopted their culture and material fashion.
But, I now have a new reading wish list for x-mas...thanks again.
Not, I'm afraid, even that simple. There are indications that some native elites became Anglicised. The greatest indicators are for the West Saxon dynasty, with its founder Cerdic, and successors Ceawlin and Caedwalla certainly or almost certainly having native Brythonic names, and others, such as Cynric (Cunorix?), Cynibil (Cunobelin?) having possibly native names.
The real reason behind the Anglicisation of lowland Britain, I believe, was that the Britons put up an effective resistance, and that the Anglo-Saxons were not a united force. In Gaul the Visigoths and Franks had united leadership and the Gallo-Romans did not fight back effectively. As a result the conquest(s) were rapid, over an area which retained its Roman infrastructure. The few Germanic speakers were then culturally and linguistically absorbed by the more sophisticated majority population.In Britain the Anglo-Saxons (incomers from across the North Sea or Natives who had been Anglicised, or a mixture of both) were defeated, Gildas talks of a generation of peace, but they were not expelled from Britain. From c. 570 the Anglo-Saxons broke out of their coastal enclaves, and by 620 had taken control of the greater part of former Roman Britain . By this, time the English were not taking over a functioning Romanised society, as the Franks had done in Gaul, the Britons were at about the same cultural level as them. Therefore, there was no need for the English to adopt a superior culture or language, as they no longer existed. Indeed the opposite was now the case, the English were politically dominant and so their language and culture was absorbed by the natives in a very complete manner.
Martin
Fac me cocleario vomere!
Posts: 168
Threads: 9
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
0
Quote:Not, I'm afraid, even that simple. There are indications that some native elites became Anglicised. The greatest indicators are for the West Saxon dynasty, with its founder Cerdic, and successors Ceawlin and Caedwalla certainly or almost certainly having native Brythonic names, and others, such as Cynric (Cunorix?), Cynibil (Cunobelin?) having possibly native names.
The real reason behind the Anglicisation of lowland Britain, I believe, was that the Britons put up an effective resistance, and that the Anglo-Saxons were not a united force. In Gaul the Visigoths and Franks had united leadership and the Gallo-Romans did not fight back effectively. As a result the conquest(s) were rapid, over an area which retained its Roman infrastructure. The few Germanic speakers were then culturally and linguistically absorbed by the more sophisticated majority population.In Britain the Anglo-Saxons (incomers from across the North Sea or Natives who had been Anglicised, or a mixture of both) were defeated, Gildas talks of a generation of peace, but they were not expelled from Britain. From c. 570 the Anglo-Saxons broke out of their coastal enclaves, and by 620 had taken control of the greater part of former Roman Britain . By this, time the English were not taking over a functioning Romanised society, as the Franks had done in Gaul, the Britons were at about the same cultural level as them. Therefore, there was no need for the English to adopt a superior culture or language, as they no longer existed. Indeed the opposite was now the case, the English were politically dominant and so their language and culture was absorbed by the natives in a very complete manner.
Thanks. That would make Gildas' lamentation over the infighting on the brit-side much more understandable, and not simply a case of "in the good old days."
There are some who call me ......... Tim?
|
![[Image: wip2_r1_c1-1-1.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/PaulHB/wip2_r1_c1-1-1.jpg)
![[Image: Comitatuslogo3.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/PaulHB/Comitatuslogo3.jpg)
