03-19-2009, 08:33 PM
Hi all,
I’m new to RAT, and noticed that you were discussing books by two authors that I’d recently read, Laycock and Pace. (Laycock's book was his earlier Britannia: the Failed State) Both give a lot of information I wasn’t aware of. But frankly, I had problems with both, although for different reasons. The problem I had with Laycock's Britannia was that his very good information about British belt buckles being used by British 'militias' seemed to make his other idea (that every early British king was hiring Saxon mercenaries) that much less believable. If you already have British military units, why use barbarians, especially barbarians who don’t seem to have been very keen fighters? My main interest has been continental Romans, and all the evidence I’m aware of shows Saxons as more adept at running away than putting up a fight like Visigoths or Vandals. But is there evidence for Saxons fighting Saxons at this time, and at the behest of British kings? All Laycock’s examples seem pretty circumstantial.
I would agree that Pace is really giving a history of the proud tyrant, not Arthur. I’d also say that his style is way too breezy for my taste. But a good friend was very excited about it, not because of the dramatic history part, but because he said that the appendices refuted the ideas of someone called David Dumville. Pace supposedly overturns a lot of the doubt that has been raised about the British evidence. I’ve actually read Appendix III, and superficially Pace seems to make a better case than Dumville. But that raises the question, what other cases have been made?
Thanks in advance for any ideas on this. Both books have whetted my appetite for finding out more about this period.
"Marcus"
I’m new to RAT, and noticed that you were discussing books by two authors that I’d recently read, Laycock and Pace. (Laycock's book was his earlier Britannia: the Failed State) Both give a lot of information I wasn’t aware of. But frankly, I had problems with both, although for different reasons. The problem I had with Laycock's Britannia was that his very good information about British belt buckles being used by British 'militias' seemed to make his other idea (that every early British king was hiring Saxon mercenaries) that much less believable. If you already have British military units, why use barbarians, especially barbarians who don’t seem to have been very keen fighters? My main interest has been continental Romans, and all the evidence I’m aware of shows Saxons as more adept at running away than putting up a fight like Visigoths or Vandals. But is there evidence for Saxons fighting Saxons at this time, and at the behest of British kings? All Laycock’s examples seem pretty circumstantial.
I would agree that Pace is really giving a history of the proud tyrant, not Arthur. I’d also say that his style is way too breezy for my taste. But a good friend was very excited about it, not because of the dramatic history part, but because he said that the appendices refuted the ideas of someone called David Dumville. Pace supposedly overturns a lot of the doubt that has been raised about the British evidence. I’ve actually read Appendix III, and superficially Pace seems to make a better case than Dumville. But that raises the question, what other cases have been made?
Thanks in advance for any ideas on this. Both books have whetted my appetite for finding out more about this period.
"Marcus"
