Romans in Britain: Genocide & Christianity?

[Nathan Ross]

Last weekend at Kelmarsh Festival of History, the novelists (and RAT members) Tony Riches and Manda Scott debated the old favourite The Romans; What did they do for us? In particular, it seems, they were talking about the impact of Roman rule on Britain. Manda Scott appears to have taken a negative view, to say the least, so I assume Tony Riches was pro-

Did anyone attend who might comment about the debate? Or would the speakers themselves care to revisit their positions here, perhaps?

Manda Scott also features on a podcast from the BBC History magazine, in which she argues for the Roman conquest being 'the greatest crime perpetrated against the British people', bringing only 'Genocide and Christianity' hock:

Anyone interested (or outraged!) might like to ready themselves a glass of strong cordial and skip to about two fifths in for Manda's bit:

BBC History Magazine July 2011

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Sorry but Manda Scott is full of it.

The British people did not exist untill the British realm was invented. The Britons and other tribes in what is now known as the UK have nothing in common with the present-day genetic makeup of the UK. Genocide is a ridiculous phrase in this context as is the bringing of Christianity.

M.VIB.M.

[Vindex]

Hmm...do either of them have a book coming out by any chance?

As an aside and hopefully not off topic, I went to the Chalke Valley History Festival and was captivated by Michael Wood on Alexander and his access to the site of Gaugamela - a very POSITIVE experience.

[Nurglitch]

Sorry, but such a discussion in UK is a bit pointless. In UK there is no god but Dawkins and BBC is His prophet. It might be easier discussing Allah in Afghanistan

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Am reading quite a good book on the Roman influence on Briton, and the attitudes and affiliations of the tribes who embraced the Roman way of life.

The Heirs of King Verica: Culture and Politics in Roman Britain!

A very logical and interesting read. No inflamatory nationalistic sentiment, just
a realistic relating of the facts, with a little story telling mixed in.

I like it!

[Statius]

Sorry but Manda Scott is full of it.

The British people did not exist untill the British realm was invented. The Britons and other tribes in what is now known as the UK have nothing in common with the present-day genetic makeup of the UK. Genocide is a ridiculous phrase in this context as is the bringing of Christianity.

M.VIB.M.

Tend to agree, more holes in her argument than a swiss cheese. Put politely she is very selective in the evidence she uses to support her theories. I sugges people listen to her and make their own minds up!

[Gaius Colletti]

The British people did not exist untill the British realm was invented. The Britons and other tribes in what is now known as the UK have nothing in common with the present-day genetic makeup of the UK.

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?

The Romans how ever "cruel" their methods were, really made life better for conquered people, giving them new technology, engineers, infrastructure, roads, laws...

If someone wants to argue against that, then keep in mind the Romans protected these people from invading Dacians and Germans all the time who would do worse, and knock them down a few levels civilization wise. Also notice how Roman proviences resemble modern countires (Hispania, Gaul, Italia, Briton, Egypt, Syria, Greece/Macedon)?

[caiusbeerquitius]

I rarely heard so many misunderstandings and misconceptions massed like in this interview. Funniest thing is she using "us" and "we" all the time...
If it weren´t so sad I´d have laughed quite a bit.

[Vindex]

[quote][quote="MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS" post=292039]

The Romans how ever "cruel" their methods were, really made life better for conquered people, giving them new technology, engineers, infrastructure, roads, laws...

If someone wants to argue against that, then keep in mind the Romans protected these people from invading Dacians and Germans all the time who would do worse, and knock them down a few levels civilization wise. Also notice how Roman proviences resemble modern countires (Hispania, Gaul, Italia, Briton, Egypt, Syria, Greece/Macedon)?[/quote]

Not wishing to be an apologist for Manda Scott, there is enough evidence to suggest that "civilization" in various areas of the province of Britannia was fairly well advanced - good quality pottery, mining industry and farming etc. Why else would the Romans want it? And they were the only real "invader" ie crossing water for a good couple of centuries.

What the Romans did bring was the industrial levels of production and prosperity in contracts in support of the army of occupation.

[Crispvs]

Well, I've just listened to it and I have to wonder what planet Manda Scott is living on - has Pioneer 12 reached it yet?

Her constant use of the words 'us' and 'we' when talking of (her version of) the various ancient British tribes demonstrates a worrying level of self delusion in her view of iron age Britain. To identify so closely with a people (or peoples) about whose culture very little is really known for sure is to invite the skepticism of those of us of a somewhat more academic bent.

Yes, it is a recognised fact that superb metalworking skills were to be found in iron age Britain, but that alone does not mean that all other aspects of the culture (or cultures) as a whole were just as advanced.

Her view of ancient British society as an advanced, peaceful, stable, egalitarian warrior society where warfare existed but did not cause casualties (although in a later part of her piece she seemed to contradict herself on that point) so as to leave more men to bring in the harvest seems to contrast strongly with the evidence for a strictly stratified society which was so geared to war that it participated in huge engineering projects to fortify hills, went on military expeditions to Gaul and liked to display its prowess in war by the showing off the preserved heads of slain enemies and which also participated in human sacrifice. Also, a definition of 'egalitarian' as meaning equality of the sexes but not equality of society as a whole is a rather odd definition of the word.

She often dismisses the evidence we do have in favour of assumed 'evidence' which we do not have. True, the winners write the history and very little was written by the Britains in any case but that does not mean that Caesar, Strabo and co lied, although we can readily accept that they may have misunderstood many things. She also relies very heavily on assumptions, a case in point being her statements about productivity. She says that Butser Ancient Farm has proved how productive the ancient Britains were but when I went there and talked to them, I was shown the impressive results of their agricultural experiments and was told of the potential productivity that these results *might* indicate. The excellent staff at Butser made no claims of proof to me, only claims of demonstrated possibility. She also makes bothersome assumptions about warfare. It may be news to her that practiced skill with weapons is as important as self belief and I would also question assumptions based on "a limited experience of battle re-enactment". Re-enactment combat does not have to take account of a whole host of variables which may have been historically present. Also, it is hardly likely that the warrior class would be the ones bringing in the harvest.

Her chronological knowledge is also very poor. The body with the 'bolt' in its back was not post Roman but in fact was stratigraphically dated to around fifty years before the Roman invasion and had a javelin head, not an artillery bolt head in its back. This is hardly a novel and unknown fact. Also her statement about Paul's view of things being accepted because the population of Jerusalem had been wiped out seems ignorant of the fact that Paul died during the Neronian persecution, so the Roman capture of Jerusalem in AD70 could not have influenced him (not that there is anything much in his letters which is critical of the Roman state anyway - he was a Roman citizen and valued [and made use of] this status, but he was also a Jew and knew the history of the Roman occupation of his homeland, as well as having been on the receiving end of it, which was just as widely published). She also seemed to run neolithic Britain (reference to Grime's Graves) into late La Tene Britain as if they were one and the same culture. I would also have to ask when she thinks the Romans "continued to win out in Parthia". I would also love to know how she feels that Christianity equates with genocide.

It is obvious that she has visited a few museums and has dipped into a copy of Suetonius (the slightly dodgy Penguin translation perhaps?) but her overall understanding of the ancient world seemed very poor.

I didn't get to see any of the writers' talks as I was tied to one part of the site for the whole weekend (although Ben Kane did stop by to say hello) but I think I would have had a lot of critical comments to make in response to her talk.


Nathan, I didn't know you were at Kelmarsh. It would nave been nice to meet face to face at last. Ah well, perhaps another time.

Crispvs

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Why else would the Romans want it? And they were the only real "invader" ie crossing water for a good couple of centuries.

Why ? Simple, The Roman Praetorian Guard acclaimed emperor Claudius needed a succes.

Since Caligula never actually invaded the British Isles, and Caesar only stayed for a short while in the south, the unconquered territories provided a lure.

Only after the invasion the mines were discovered and extended to an industrial level by the Romans. The entire "pacification" of the British isles never fully succeeded. Even in the 190's there still were awkward situations with the tribes on the Roman side of the Wall, according to several remarks in the Vindolanda Tablets.

To see the British as "we" and "us" is a modern anachronistic view and amounts to positivism.

The Gallic tribal society of the first century BC was probably more evolved than the British tribal society of the first century BC as well as AD. Stating the British Isles had an "advanced civilisation" is just plain wrong.

The only really advanced societies of the classical world were located in Northern Africa, Asia, the Greek mainland, Italy and Egypt.

And then again, one needs to define the term "advanced".

M.VIB.M.

[Nathan Ross]

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...

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 :-?

[Sean Manning]

She also talks about a loss of equality under the Romans, but its almost universally true that societies get less equitable as they get more organized and urbanized. That was one of the choices preindustrial societies had to make: did they accept a king who would end internal war but force people to obey him? The argument that “Celtic art” marks an elite culture also suggests that there wasn't so much difference between the people who ran south-east Britain and their slave owning, warlike Gaulish neighbours.

On the other hand, its not fair to point at all the things which happened after the Roman conquest and assume that none of them would have happened had Britain stayed independent. Civilization (in the proper technical sense of "societies with towns") had been slowly spreading north across Europe for some time.

[Memmia]

Hi all,

I was just reading this the other day, may be of interest regarding the discussion

Whence came the English?:

Reference

Russell,, Charlotte Kate (2007) Whence came the English?: exploring relationships between the Iron Age, Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon periods in Britain and Denmark : a craniometric biodistance analysis. Doctoral thesis, Durham University.

Ta

Jo

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

As I mentioned, most of the argument against her view is quite clearly put out in the

book I mentioned. But I imagine you would have all read it and know this.