\'The myth of Celtic and Roman Britain\'

[Ron Andrea]

In the case of Britannia, the Britons tried and failed to both resist and expel the Romans. The legions departure seemed caused as much indifference--and higher priorities elsewhere--as any active Briton resistance.

What departure are you referring to Ron?
Caesar's short visits or the legendary evacuation of Britain in 410 AD?

I was referring to the final withdrawal. I didn't include a date because there were definite signs of Roman interest after 410. But after Germanus first (and probably only historical) visit, Britain was pretty much on its own, even if the "see to your own defenses" letter was apocryphal. Clearly, long-term Roman military presence had ended. The wheat exports had ended, or shortly did. In a cultural version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, without the constant application of energy (money, soldiers, administrators, etc.) from Rome, Roman Britain atrophied and died. :?

On the other hand, apparently an element in Britain tried to maintain Roman culture and institutions for much of the fourth century. Opposing them seems to have been a resurgent Briton side. It might be too strong to label them Celtic or tribal--much less druidic--but I suspect they appealed to those cultural, tribal, religious sensitivities in their arguments with the sub-Roman elements.

Eventually night fell on Roman Britain and when dawn rose several hundred years later, everything had changed. Except for the roads and church most everything Roman was gone, the Britons--Celtic or otherwise--had been pushed back into Cornwall and Wales and the pagan, illiterate, barbarian Anglo-Saxons were now the Christian, literature, and sort-of-cultured Saxons kingdoms (especially Wessex) as reported in The Anglo-Saxons Chronicles.

So, as far as Rome was concerned, Britannia had ceased to exist. And, I suspect, vice versa. :wink: