07-20-2011, 02:18 AM
Well, I did rather expect a chorus of disapproval :wink:
I try to be a little more equitable towards Manda Scott, as she's a novelist and doesn't claim to be an objective historian (unlike certain other people), but some of her claims did seem exaggerated. I wonder what sort of counter arguments Mr Riches presented?
Surely part of the problem is the use of loaded words like 'civilisation' and 'advanced', which are strictly relative. Our notion of civilisation derives in part from the Greco-Roman tradition, and so depends upon that system of values. It's difficult to argue that a historical culture or society was more civilised that a contemporary other which invented the prevailing norms of civilisation itself without retrospectively applying our own ethical considerations to the case. One could argue that the Britons (or Germans, etc) had evolved their own complex system of civil society which was more in accordance with our own ethical position than that of Rome - Scott attempts to do this, but without any real evidence to support the case, as far as I can tell.
The idea that the Romans forcibly suppressed or destroyed the native British culture and replaced it with their own is also, I believe, quite counter to the accepted trend in modern Romano-British history, which stresses far more of a continuity in native British life under Roman rule than a radical break with the pre-conquest past. I have no idea how accurate this view might be either!
As for genocide - I agree the Romans were not prone to it as a rule, as they preferred slaves and survivors they could tax and (eventually) enfranchise. Only two episodes spring to mind: Domitian's (exaggerated) claim that he had 'forbidden the Nasamones to exist', and the desperate attempts of Severus and Caracalla to extricate themselves from the Caledonian war by killing everyone in sight...
I wasn't actually - It would have been nice indeed, but I'm currently stuck in Quebec, of all places :-?
I try to be a little more equitable towards Manda Scott, as she's a novelist and doesn't claim to be an objective historian (unlike certain other people), but some of her claims did seem exaggerated. I wonder what sort of counter arguments Mr Riches presented?
Surely part of the problem is the use of loaded words like 'civilisation' and 'advanced', which are strictly relative. Our notion of civilisation derives in part from the Greco-Roman tradition, and so depends upon that system of values. It's difficult to argue that a historical culture or society was more civilised that a contemporary other which invented the prevailing norms of civilisation itself without retrospectively applying our own ethical considerations to the case. One could argue that the Britons (or Germans, etc) had evolved their own complex system of civil society which was more in accordance with our own ethical position than that of Rome - Scott attempts to do this, but without any real evidence to support the case, as far as I can tell.
The idea that the Romans forcibly suppressed or destroyed the native British culture and replaced it with their own is also, I believe, quite counter to the accepted trend in modern Romano-British history, which stresses far more of a continuity in native British life under Roman rule than a radical break with the pre-conquest past. I have no idea how accurate this view might be either!
As for genocide - I agree the Romans were not prone to it as a rule, as they preferred slaves and survivors they could tax and (eventually) enfranchise. Only two episodes spring to mind: Domitian's (exaggerated) claim that he had 'forbidden the Nasamones to exist', and the desperate attempts of Severus and Caracalla to extricate themselves from the Caledonian war by killing everyone in sight...
Quote:Nathan, I didn't know you were at Kelmarsh. It would nave been nice to meet face to face at last.
I wasn't actually - It would have been nice indeed, but I'm currently stuck in Quebec, of all places :-?
Nathan Ross
