Romans in Britain: Genocide & Christianity?

[Stephen Beat]

Hello all - and first of all can I just say (admit) I am not any kind of expert or historian, even an amateur one! I just wanted to express a lay person's opinion - I hope you all don't mind...

I have just listened to Manada Scott's piece on the latest BBC History podcast and I have to say that while her idea (or should I say 'ideal') is attractive even I winced at some of her propositions.

First of all I think there is a kernel of truth in some of what she says - Roman occupation was no bed of roses for the ordinary inhabitant of these isles. And I also agree - perhaps because I am of Celtic decent myself - that the Celtic peoples probably could have continued on very nicely thank you very much without Roman civilization being forced upon them...In fact I think it's a mistake to think that civilization *came* to these isles with the Romans. Celtic civilization was already here. But I digress.

Manda seemed to me to be pandering to a very sentimental view of the native Celts in much the same way as some romanticise the life style of the Native Americans. 'New Wave' culture dictates that these aboriginal times (if that's the correct phrase) were a 'better' times. People see the Celts through tinted glasses as some sort of ideal culture where 'we' were all happier and healthier.

Manada seems to fall into this trap, particularly as she gets on her soap box about a more 'equal' culture which was fairer to women.

Her ideas that were it not for the Romans that we would today be in the midst of some sort of matriarchal utopia are rather dubious. And while, yes, Celts did manage without the Roman roads even I have to almost admire the Roman knack for industrialization and commerce.

In short - I found some of her statements hokey - though I couldn't always say for sure why.

Again - I hope you do not mind my saying my peace, I sort of agree with some of the things said in this thread, I also agree with a few of the ideas that Manda has - but I definitely wouldn't say 'let's split the difference' as I don't think the truth is halfway between both views on this occasion.

Thank you for a very interesting forum - I will be sure to become a more frequent visitor.

[Tarbicus]

I was tied to one part of the site for the whole weekend

Damn, I was there on Sunday for a few hours. I'll go around shouting "Crispus!" next year.

[Robert Vermaat]

First of all I think there is a kernel of truth in some of what she says - Roman occupation was no bed of roses for the ordinary inhabitant of these isles. And I also agree - perhaps because I am of Celtic decent myself - that the Celtic peoples probably could have continued on very nicely thank you very much without Roman civilization being forced upon them...In fact I think it's a mistake to think that civilization *came* to these isles with the Romans. Celtic civilization was already here. But I digress.

I think it's completely pointless to discuss history in this way. I mean, I love novels like 'Lest Darkness Falls' by L. Spraque The Camp, but that's it. What if Alexander had not died in his 30s but in his 80s? Would Rome never have existed? What if the Romans indeed had never occupied Britain? Would the Celts have continued in their happy way of killing each other? I think not, the Germanic expansion which had already been 'driving the Celts' from most of Germany would have continued, and the first Germanic tribes may have invaded Britain by the 1st century, if we would see a continuation. But, that's my point, we can't see that, because history went another way.

Two points:

ONE - I agree with you about the use of the word 'civilization'. Of course the Celts had also 'civilization', so we should only use the word with the suffix 'Celtic' or 'Roman' attached to it. Having said that, ‘Celtic’ civilization did not include roads, planned towns, roofed building, aqueducts and the whole litany of ‘what did the Romans ever do for us’?

TWO – The Celtic tribes of Britain were not engaged in some sort of happy coexisting society, it was tribal domination and tribal warfare all over the place. Yes, the Roman invasion and occupation was a very bloody business, but to state that it cost more lives that any situation where it did not take place is a non-discussion. The ‘Pax Romana’ was a violent affair, but over 3 centuries of relative piece afterwards also saved a lot of lives. But as stated above, it’s essentially a non-discussion because we don’t have access to that parallel universe.

Her ideas that were it not for the Romans that we would today be in the midst of some sort of matriarchal utopia are rather dubious.

To say the least.

[Ghostmojo]

We have to return to the basic issue here which is too easily avoided by some commentators - thankfully acknowledged by others, and that is whether the ancient British peoples were 'Celts' at all. This is by no means settled and shouldn't be proclaimed as being so. We have discussed this endlessly - Celt being a loaded term - with all its cultural and political overtones. Such ascertions have been challenged and disputed by, amongst others, leading Irish historians and academics, and that being the case (from surely the navel of the Western European 'Celtic' expression) - there are surely grounds for treading carefully?

[Nathan Ross]

Roman occupation was no bed of roses for the ordinary inhabitant of these isles.

The initial Roman conquest of Britain was certainly a bloody business - nobody really believes that the Romans just turned up to give everyone a free shave and haircut and install some nice mosaic flooring. Continuing resistance in modern Wales and northern England, not to mention Boudica's revolt, testify that the Britons fought hard against Rome. But (aside from the Brigantes, who were still revolting in the late 2nd century), once under Roman control most areas of the country remained quiet for several hundred years. Boudica's Icenia was a client state in AD 61 - her uprising was partly a response to the threat of annexation.

Presuming that the Britons were not an entirely spineless bunch, we would have to conclude that Roman rule was not as unpopular or arduous as all that. In fact, it's possible that 'the ordinary inhabitant of these isles' may not have been all that aware of the Roman presence anyway: most of the time, Roman rule worked through co-opting local elites and controlling trade networks. Civilisation on the Roman model may have filtered down slowly through the tiers of native society, but the legionaries were not going around wrestling everyone into togas and frogmarching them off to the bathhouse (or the church )

Celtic civilization was already here. But... People see the Celts through tinted glasses as some sort of ideal culture where 'we' were all happier and healthier.

I think Manda Scott's idea of pre-Roman British civilisation owes at least something to the Irish mythology of the Ulster Cycle: small-scale cattle raiding, single combat between champions, Queens like Mebd and 'warrior women' like Scathach. Trouble is, we don't know when the Ulster stories are supposed to be set (some between the 1st BC and 7th AD?), or whether they relate to any real historical period at all. Also, native British society (in the south at least) appears closer to the continental model than to early Gaelic Ireland. Pre-Roman fortifications in Britain, all those massive hillforts, suggest a turbulent and territorial society built on intertribal war and conquest, rather than the heroic world of the Irish myths. There might be something in the connection, but we just don't have the evidence for it. Then again, novelists can imagine all they want

- Nathan

[Paul Elliott]

I'd have thought if anyone should complain bitterly about Roman aggression its the Germans! How many generations of German menfolk flung themselves at the northern borders and suffered massacee after masacre in retribution? From the days of Germanicus into the horrendous Marcomannic Wars and on into the troubles of the 4th century.

Britain was severely beaten when it rose up, but the 3rd c in particulary was very peaceful and prosperous. And when Rome left, we Britons carried on almost as if they'd never been here, hillforts, paganism, same old tribal boundaries etc. If they'd screwed us up that much then there'd be no quick reversion back to local iron age 'norms'.

[M. Demetrius]

True. However, since the Romans had been the military in Britain, and except for auxilia, the Britons were not allowed to have an army, they were much easier pickings for the incoming Europeans. They had lost the structure and organization that had made them such a difficult adversary for the Romans.

Not to say they were weaklings, of course. But military training and materiel, and soldierly discipline were needed to resist the Germanics, Vikings, etc who began to move on what they believed was an unprotected land. Those things went missing over the 4 or 5 centuries of Roman protection.



Nice link, Mithras, well made website.

[Robert Vermaat]

And when Rome left, we Britons carried on almost as if they'd never been here, hillforts, paganism, same old tribal boundaries etc. If they'd screwed us up that much then there'd be no quick reversion back to local iron age 'norms'.

You've been reading Stuart Laycock's books.

[Statius]

And when Rome left, we Britons carried on almost as if they'd never been here, hillforts, paganism, same old tribal boundaries etc. If they'd screwed us up that much then there'd be no quick reversion back to local iron age 'norms'.

You've been reading Stuart Laycock's books.

An interesting observation....is that a good or bad thing

[Robert Vermaat]

You've been reading Stuart Laycock's books.

An interesting observation....is that a good or bad thing

By itself, not a bad thing. Stuart is a great guy who wrote some great books (on of them with my face on the cover, so who complaing? ). In this case though I can't agree with his conclusion that the Britons were hardly affected by the centuries of Roman presence, that the tribal background survived (including identity and inter-tribal conflict) throughout the occupation, and that the end of that occupation was already preceded by a re-arming of these tribal communities.

The way Paul described it, the 'same old tribal boundaries', is pure speculation of course because we hardly know where they boundaries were in the first place. I also see no going back to Iron Age norms, to the contrary: where they could, they attempted to sustain a lot of Romanitas. I think post-Roman Britain was very different from pre-Roman Britain. Not just socially. Although a lot of 'horoic society' springs up again, that's to be expected. It doesn't mean that it remained around, beneath the surface.

[Statius]

Very eloquently put Robert I am in total agreement with you. I think Laycock's works are well written and informative and have given a new dimension to debate concerning the end of Roman Britain and subsequent years yet I struggle to agree with his argument concerning the lack of impact of over 400 years of Roman rule and the return to Iron age tribal divisions.

[Paul Elliott]

I have one of Laycock's books, so I might have read ideas like that there.

It was a thow away line, by the way! I don't consider it plausible that if you 'cut out' the Romans from the timeline that 42 AD and 411AD would join together seamlessly...

But I still consider the iron-rural communities the de rigeur heart of Britain, throughout and beyond the Roman military invasion, with cities dying on the vine within a generation.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Paul,

I don't consider it plausible that if you 'cut out' the Romans from the timeline that 42 AD and 411AD would join together seamlessly...
But I still consider the iron-rural communities the de rigeur heart of Britain, throughout and beyond the Roman military invasion, with cities dying on the vine within a generation.

I think you are right about the Iron Age being at the heart of Roman Britain, or at least under the floor, so to speak. I don't agree about the cities though. Already during the 3rd century we see a change in role and shape, changing perhaps from economic centre and focal point of Roman identity into an elite settlement, with walls to defend it. The cities and towns dwindled in population, but although some indeed seem to have died soon, others continued for a century or more after the end of Roman rule.

[Alanus]

Agreed Marcus, Britain was far from the only place the Romans did such "exterminations" for lack of a better term. How many people do we estimate Caesar killed in the Gallic Wars, a million? How many of them were actually fighting Gallic soldiers,a quarter of that?

A bit off-subject but a good point. A few years back I wrote a novel, the protagonist being Vercassivelaunus, cousin of Vercingetorix. I used the Commentaries as a historical reference, Caesar's own words. I was shocked at the numerical statistics and those left out. On the Rhine border, 330,000 Germans were killed, mostly women and children. The oppidum of Avaricum was massacred to the last dog. All the Veneti nobles were beheaded. The list could go on and on, but the point I want to make is the number exceeded 2,000,000, which must have been a huge percentage of the Gallic population. So, yes, I would catagorize the "conquest" of Gaul as genocide. This says very little for Caesar as a "good man." However, the conquest of Britain could not fall into a genocidal catagory, at least from what is left of the evidence. :roll:

[Nathan Ross]

Caesar's own words. I was shocked at the numerical statistics and those left out.

True enough, and it makes you wonder about other campaigns for which we do not have those 'own words'. Then again, in an age when killing people was not thought intrinsically wrong (although wasting 'natural resources' might be!), it's possible that Caesar exaggerated the number of the dead to accentuate his own severity and the scale of his conquests.

We should be careful about using the word genocide anyway. The concept did not exist in antiquity, and arguably belongs to the era of industrialisation and the modern nation state. Caesar was clearly not attempting to entirely exterminate the race of the Gauls - his executions were intended as a stern warning to the survivors, and with genocide there are no survivors to warn. The Germans might have been a different matter, of course.

As I mentioned above, there are few cases in Roman history that might suggest a deliberate attempt at extinguishing an entire people. Domitian's 'banning' of the Nasamones was a mere boast, and we know nothing about what really happened. Severus' Homeric injunction to his sons to spare "not even the babe in the womb of the mother,
if it be male; let it nevertheless not escape sheer destruction" was a act of desperation, not a considered policy. He was attempting to denude Caledonia of warriors (only the male children are slain) - whatever the further effect might have been seems not to have concerned him.