Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
What Did We Ever Do For the Romans?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Tuesday, 18th August 2009
Hi all,
Have just been discussing this with a colleague. The reasons for Roman interest in and eventual conquest of Britain are manifold and well-documented - but what ultimately did they get out of it?
Britain was hardly on a par with Egypt - supplying the Empire with the vast quantities of grain needed to keep it running - nor did our island yield all that much in precious or useful metals (compared to the wild stories circulating prior to Julius Ceasar's invasion). Did what Britain provide to the empire exceed the cost of garrisonning and administrating it?
As far as I know it didn't even provide a useful stage-point in opening new trade routes with other countries.
So - was it really worth it in the long run? Or was it simply a matter of prestige and propaganda?
Cheers
Andrew -
Message 2
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Tuesday, 18th August 2009
Andrew,
Gave them a sense of superiority perhaps ? -
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 19th August 2009
If an Empire wanted to expand to the Baltic sea the control of at least South Britain would be helpful.
However, Roman Empire became a naval Empire (in the proper sense of that) only when it got transformed to what we know as Byzantine, but then it had already largely forgotten the west (apart Justinian who of course concentrated in the Mediterranean).
I do not remember the details of the Roman invasion in Britain but it seems it had not been a calculated move like was the Roman moves in the east and south (moves that took centuries to give fruits). Ceasar had recently conquered the Gaul. Britain just stood opposite to it. Despite the fact that no British tribe ever threatened the Romans, the Roman army was there in numbers and it seemed an easy task given that Britons were even more divided than the Gauls (whose around 40% had allied with Rome during the conquests).
Therefore for Romans it was a good idea to jump and take control of at least the channel - their geostrategic mind just jumped on that. Besides that Britain had copper mines (known from even more ancient times - even Phoenicians traded with there), thus there were indeed some complementary financial reasons besides just occupying the inflated army numbers with an easy conquest.
I suspect there could be the case of local chieftains inviting the Romans in so as to gain more control over their neighbours - as usual it happens in the case where an Empire borders with a region organised on a tribal model. -
Message 4
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 19th August 2009
If I remember theres a quote somewere that gives Britains exports under the Romans as Grain, Gold,Silver, Tin, Lead, Slaves, timber, Hunting dogs and waterproof cloaks. Might not have got all of them and might have added a few in for all that.
-
Message 5
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 19th August 2009
I wouldn't downplay the value of the exported materials and slaves, and nor would I distinguish overmuch between the invasion of Britain and that of Gaul. Essentially the real attraction in both cases seems to have been that the indigenous populations had developed a rather lucrative industry in both metals and slaves, and such ready-formed lootables were never far under the surface of the rhetoric which Roman generals and politicians used to justify invasion anywhere.
Why they remained is rather harder to explain in terms of pure economic benefits, though it is important to bear in mind the fundamental change of definition in what being "Roman" in Britain actually meant throughout the entire occupation. The ethnic separateness between indigenous "Briton" and imported "Roman" didn't seem to take too long to break down, in fact it is one of the factors sometimes cited as being part of the rationale Boudicca used to justify her uprising, a mere 18 years after the invasion proper had begun. The policy Rome then employed of effectively eliminating a whole aristocratic class from which such opposition might again arise, and its willingness to finance a heavy military presence, were fundamental to that longevity of tenure since they both accelerated the Britons' own self-perception as fellow Romans, or at least inextricably tied to them.
After a century or so had elapsed it was no longer a question of "what can the Romans do for us" or "what can we do for the Romans", but simply a question of there being no obviously feasible alternative in terms of governance in any case, whether one considered oneself British or Roman (or more likely both). -
Message 6
Posted by poppyanddaisy (U14107848) on Wednesday, 19th August 2009
I believe that blonde slave girls from Britannia were very popular in Rome after the conquest
-
Message 7
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Wednesday, 19th August 2009
Andrew,
I know it's fiction (but including what few facts there are), but Manda Scott's 'Boudica' series suggests that many Britons were incorporated into the Roman system.
Could they have been the forerunners of the later aristocracy ?
She also states that outstanding 'British' warriors were identified by the Romans and brought into their military system.
If this actually happened, then many of the subsequent great Roman generals could be the descendants of those British warriors. -
Message 8
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Wednesday, 19th August 2009
Hi Andrew
I cannot agree that invading Britain was an unplanned 鈥渏olly鈥, remember that Julius Caesar invaded twice. Surprisingly trade with Rome appears to 鈥渢ake off鈥 and strengthen with certain tribes after the last ivasion.
So if this was the case why would Claudius invade, was it for prestige? Probably not.
During this period it would have been possible to ascertain the worth of Britain and ascertain its effect on Gaul and the latter point may have been crucial.
I expect that it is too easy to write of the Celtic races as being inferior to the Romans, where it would appear that they were in fact bitter rivals.
The Celts were in Italy around 300BC dominating parts of the area and weren鈥檛 driven out for a further two hundred years. So for Rome to prevail over the Celts was of paramount importance.
Britain held a residue of Culture of the Celtic race and would always be a thorn in the side of the Romans regarding holding onto Gaul.
It took a long time to subdue mainland Britain (30 years) and they never conquered the far North, they slaughtered the Druids and were draconian in their treatment of the Iceni, only stopping when it was becoming economically unwise in terms of slave labour to continue. They were certainly a ruling force.
Britain was to prove a problem area for the Romans for many centuries with many rebellions starting in Britain both from within the Roman Empire and outside attacks.
The Romans only let go when effectively they were losing control closer to 鈥渉ome鈥 and wanted to secure their base. They never survived successfully enough to hold onto Britain.
I think that interestingly many races wanted to inhabit Britain so it probably had a viable agricultural base, the weather was much warmer then than today, an example is the number of vineyards around the Northampton area in Roman times. Possibly it could have been a 鈥淏read Basket of the North鈥 in th Empire.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 9
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 19th August 2009
Re: message 5.
Nordmann,
After a century or so had elapsed it was no longer a question of "what can the Romans do for us" or "what can we do for the Romans", but simply a question of there being no obviously feasible alternative in terms of governance in any case, whether one considered oneself British or Roman (or more likely both).听
If I understand your paragraph well (many times your texts are more difficult to understand than lol beeble's. Not to say that I haven't a high esteem for you both. It can be me, who has to learn understand "learned prose", but many times I have the impression that you makes it rather "flou" so that one can interpret it in several ways?
I am doing research for a French history messageboard about the Germani and their invasions, raids, razzias, settlements into the Roman empire in the region of the nowadays Low Countries, France and parts of Germany and that from the second till the sixt century AD.
More and more I come to the conclusion that in that period you had a Germano-Roman local elite, who was both Roman and still with roots in their former descent as the graves in line burried along the Roman traditions? but with their swords...and that was German.
Is it that what you mean with your "whether one considered oneself British or Roman (or more likely both)"?
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 10
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 20th August 2009
Sorry Paul. I was not intentionally ambiguous.
What I was getting at was that whatever "British" sense of self-identity might have existed pre-invasion (a fractious and tribe-centered identity, I imagine) was effectively eliminated by the Romans, especially when their initial policy of encouraging client status amongst tribal leaders was abandoned after Boudica's uprising - or at least that's what appears to have happened. German tribes, on the other hand, retained that kind of relationship with the Romans, at least the ones on the "barbarian" side of the Rhine, a status which probably didn't please the Romans much but of which there was no other practical way of dealing with the issue as far as they were concerned, even if they risked the occasional "blip" when cultivated German allies turned nasty on them. Recent archaeological finds in Germany point to a continuation of that policy up into the 4th century and to a geographical extent further than hitherto presumed.
Britain however seems to have simply been subsumed at every level - an extension in fact of the policy adopted against the Gallic tribal system - and one could argue from the evidence that in Britain it was even more heavily prosecuted and for a longer time than in Gaul, which backs up the theory that Britain produced a more concerted and prolonged series of rebellious threats from within. However the nature of these threats, and the incidents used as evidence of them, also seems to have changed in terms of the self-perception of the "rebels". The more serious of these came to resemble in character coup attempts rather than insurrection, using Roman methods, Roman attitudes towards power, and the Roman political system against itself.
That is why it is dangerous to attempt at this remove to infer any particular kind of national identity on Britons which might have been understandable to them, let alone shared by them, during this period. Local allegiances might well have existed (they definitely came back into vogue after the Roman withdrawal), and even tribal ones, but if you were to ask someone from the period his "nationality" or civil status I am not sure that the answer would even have contained either "Briton" or "Roman" as a principal identifier.
The latter term might have been used when the situation merited it, but the former term might have only engendered confusion. Roman use of the term "Briton" seems to indicate that it was useful in describing someone or something's geographical origin but thereafter was dropped as a descriptor for any individual (much as they regarded "fellow" Romans from Spain, Illyria, Africa etc too). Within Britain we can only guess at how the question of identity was handled - there are no definitive pointers either way from the record. -
Message 11
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 20th August 2009
Regarding Andrew's original question, which could also be phrased "What did Rome get from its ownership of Britain which it otherwise might never have got?", I am afraid the list of products would have to include christianity. Britain's part in the elevation of Constantine and British legions' part in Constantine's war against Maxentius played no small role in making that particular religious code top dog over the many other potential phylactery superstitions then in vogue amongst his peers. We can only guess at how it would have evolved and/or survived without serious patronage from on high, and there is no doubt that Constantine was the catalyst through which that ball was set rolling.
-
Message 12
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 20th August 2009
Re: Message 10.
Nordmann,
thank you very much for your elaborated answer and I think I understood it all now. And it is at the same time also an elucidation for the other contributors to this thread I suppose.
Thanks again for the quick response.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 13
Posted by Jim Reuss (U10298645) on Thursday, 20th August 2009
Slaves?
-
Message 14
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Thursday, 20th August 2009
Hi Nordmann
It seems to me that there were indeed many tribes that were indeed in competition with each other but this rivalry may well have been encouraged by the Romans during the years of trading post Julius Ceasar鈥檚 invasions.
There were however alliances (Caracatus fought with a number of tribes against the Romans) between tribes but of course there was not a 鈥渉ead鈥 for everyone to rally around and also some tribes were indeed Roman allies. Many were not and as I have mentioned previously even with the Romans attacking the Brythons piecemeal it took them many years to conquer most (but not all) of Britain.
I think that to state that Britain was subsumed at every level is a vast over statement and have come to believe that many of the Celts remained but that the major influencers, the law makers and givers, judges, teachers, men of wisdom, artists etc. (the Druids) were systematically destroyed but the rulers were given privilege as long as they conformed to the Roman ideal and abandoned their Celtic roots.
Where they didn鈥檛 (Boudicca of the Iceni) they and their peoples were destroyed however the Romans caused the uprising in the first place which was detrimental to both sides in the end and may well have led to an uneasy truce between the Romans and the Local Rulers, because fighting became counter productive.
There were many rebellions from Britain, one of the reasons for dividing it into provinces was to distance the army and the rich landowners from one another, to prevent uprisings against the Empire.
Unlike most of the rest of the Roman Empire the 鈥渃ity鈥 culture did not sit comfortably in most of the country and of 3.5 million people, less than 20 percent lived in them leading to an estate society in certain areas with its peasants and slaves but with many people outside the 鈥淩oman鈥 way of life altogether.
I think that it was easy for 鈥渓ocal allegiances to come back into vogue after the Romans left鈥 鈥 effectively the Brythons were still here 鈥 perhaps still tribal 鈥 certainly not a cohesive unit.
There were probably 鈥淩oman Army Units鈥 still holding the borders and also based in the military and veteran cities like St Albans, York, Wroxeter and Cirencester but gradually they fall into disrepair and with the dilution of the Roman Lifestyle no longer became viable and are abandoned this accelerated by invasion, famine and plague which was caused by the lack of a Roman Administration.
At the end of the day Andrew鈥檚 question still hasn鈥檛 been answered apart from saying that Britain was perhaps a 鈥渂uffer state鈥 鈥 a sort of Afghanistan where rebels were be kept at bay 鈥 and a bit like Afghanistan where many foreign armies have fought each other, where many have been destroyed (British and Russian) where the local warlords ally themselves to the most powerful but where the locals lives haven鈥檛 really changed in centuries.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 15
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 21st August 2009
I took it as an established fact that the reason the Romans invaded Britain was to bolster the image of Claudius. He was seen as a bumbling fool, raised involunatarily to the purple by the troops. It was decided that the best way to give him a commanding persona was to have him conquer a province. His close personal involvement is attested by the fact that he went to the Colchester to declare victory, a huge monument to him was built at Dover (the 'entrance' of the province) and he name his son Brittanicus.
The economic benefits of Britain are not so obvious, especially as it took some 40,000 troops, which is 10% or more of the entire army(costing about 20 million denarii a year) to hold it and repel the barbarians to the north.
There is some evidence that the Britons were good at growing grain. The fact that rich Romans invested in Britain soon after the conquest presumably means that the land was lucrative. Also there were precious metals eg gold. One mine in Wales yielded about 750 million denarii of gold in its lifetime. That is only about 2.5 million a year, but it IS only one single mine. -
Message 16
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 21st August 2009
I agree completely, fascinating, that the reasons for invading were demonstrably not long-term ones. Besides the question of boosting one incumbent's imperial prestige, in the first few years Britain was also seen as a great investment for Rome's elite who followed their emperor's lead by diving headfirst into a usury racket. The "borrowers" were Britain's allied "nobles", the deal being that they would get so much into hock they would effectively be tied into dependable allied status (and be a considerable source of profit in the meantime). Boudica's rebellion must have scared the living merda out of them, as also must the aftermath when it was discovered that the "investment money" had been buried and hidden by "borrowers" who had been liquidated.
But in relation to this period, and to answer TheodoricAur's post above too, I really don't think you can use either the Romans' or Britons' relationship and behaviour in those first formative decades as a basis for deducing either party's perception of identity afterwards. When I said that Britain was "subsumed" at every level I meant in that invidious cultural manner which pervades a society forcibly made dependent on the invader's policies, sensibilities and expectations. A parallel might be made for example to Ireland in the 400 years between Henry VIII and eventual independence from Britain. The nationalists might have claimed a continuity of political aspiration dating back to late medieval times but they could not deny that their society in the meantime had changed fundamentally, and in accord with the policies, sensibilities and expectations of the occupier. In fact where the occupier ended and the occupied began had become so grey an area that the question is still causing grief in certain quarters! -
Message 17
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 21st August 2009
Well if no one can come up with an economic argument for the Romans occupying Britain, the strategic foreign policy of surrounding Germania looks more and more likely.
There was a shortage of tin needed for making bronze in the Empire, but Orosius etc, saying Orkney was occupied immediately is in the opposite direction and would only make sense in a Baltic context. -
Message 18
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 21st August 2009
I took it as an established fact that the reason the Romans invaded Britain was to bolster the image of Claudius. He was seen as a bumbling fool, raised involunatarily to the purple by the troops. It was decided that the best way to give him a commanding persona was to have him conquer a province. His close personal involvement is attested by the fact that he went to the Colchester to declare victory, a huge monument to him was built at Dover (the 'entrance' of the province) and he name his son Brittanicus.
听
Presumably if this was the case, old Claudius would have just used "shock and awe", turned the place into a parking lot with a few regiments of Elephants and gone home? -
Message 19
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 21st August 2009
the reason for invading was probably a simple one - they were celts and they were assisting celts to fight rome
staying there is complicated - they had grain - iron -copper - gold and initially slaves - but not to the extent that it was a jewel in romes crown
the pacification of Britain is more and more complicated - 4 legions - 10 percent of the roman army + auxilliaries were needed to keep the place quiet
even when the place was quiet 4 legions were permanently stationed here - why ??
what was the point of 400 years occupation -
Message 20
Posted by Shaz519 (U2827975) on Friday, 21st August 2009
the final point made above is reflected today. WW2 ended 60 + years ago. yet the allies still have bases in Germany, Japan, korea. Apart from the latter is the US fearul of the defeated enemy to mount a surprise attack after all these years?
very expensive, but they did not go to use Britain as a launch pad to conquer Ireland, Scotland Wales and the attack the troublesome germanic tribes like the vandals.
Maybe some form of prestige, to show off or intimidate the subject peoples? or was it a two way thing, the locals needed their help since they were in the empire, which was a kind of ancient EU? -
Message 21
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 21st August 2009
even when the place was quiet 4 legions were permanently stationed here - why ??
听
Half of them manned Hadrian's Wall, to repel barbarians from the North. Most of the rest we to keep down the natives in Wales and Yorkshire. -
Message 22
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 21st August 2009
Well the "three" legions stationed in Britain were never full strength and Hadrian's Wall was a cushy billet according to the Vindolanda Tablets.
-
Message 23
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 21st August 2009
I agree that the initial invasion was for Claudius' personal prestige. As for Haesten;s comment, yes he did use shock and awe, he visited th eisland for only a few days then hurried back to Riome to celebrate his triumph, leaving his generals to finish off the diffficul work.
After that, it was a question of not being seen to lose what had been taken, althoough Nero seriously considered withdrawing after the Boudica revolt. Pride won that argument, though.
There is also the consideration that keeping four legions busy subduing the natives means they cannot be plotting trouble. The number was reduced to three in 66 when the 14th was withdrawn. After that, there were always at least three and sometimes four legions in Britain. It must have cost more to keep the troops than the empire could ever have taken from the province.
As for Hadrian's Wall being a cushy number, remember that it was not built until 60 years after the invasion and the Vindolanda tables represent only a small period in time during the Wall's near 300 year use. Yes, it would be easy sometimes, but not when the Picts, Scots and Attacotti were rampaging across it. -
Message 24
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 22nd August 2009
but as the op says what did we do for the romans
3-4 legions + supporting troops is a huge expense for somewhere that is not financially viable
picts and scots were a threat to britain not the empire
britain itself was no longer a threat to the empire - the gauls were now under roman control
4 legions added to the rhine army was a huge advantage
st -
Message 25
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Saturday, 22nd August 2009
Tacitus says 8 of the Empire's 25 legions were stationed on the Rhine circa 28AD.
(They do not appear to have been able to replace the 3 legions lost at Teutoburg)
He says a fleet was stationed on each side of Italy and Mark Antony's fleet captured at Actium was stationed in the South of France. The fleet in the Rhine was Auxilia, presumably Celtic ships from Gaul and even Britain. -
Message 26
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Sunday, 23rd August 2009
Thinking further, I think I am right in saying that Aurelian, during the crisis of the third century, withdrew from Dacia (modern day Romania). Looking at the map, you can see why, the province was across the Danube and presented an extensive, hard-to-defend border with barbarians. You might say that Britain's position was roughly similar, the province being half an island, prone to attack from its northern border, and also by sea-borne raiders.
Yet Britain was never considered for abandonment (until 410 when Gaul was lost). I tend to think that, even though the cost of troops in Britain was about 20 million denarii a year, the Romans were able to ensure that they got at least that amount back in taxes. With a population of 3-5 million, it is not impossible that Britain was able to pay. -
Message 27
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Sunday, 23rd August 2009
Well to answer the question, was there any Briton Roman Citizen who rose to the top of Roman society? Did any make some sort of impact or valuable contribution? Did Roman Historians acknowledge any? They were here for over 4 centuries. One Emperor was crowned here, he was from Italy of course, but did any from these shores make it? Was there some form of stigma, prejudice or could anyone rise if once they were a citizen and did as the romans did? Or as in most cases, you rose above your station according to who you knew or your connections?
-
Message 28
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Sunday, 23rd August 2009
Others may have more information than me, but there are almost no British people that we know of that rose to high office in the Roman period. The only one I know of is Pelagius, and he is only known as a Bishop who was condemned as a heretic, in the 4th century.
-
Message 29
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 23rd August 2009
Not that i have any more information, but I think that Britons that rose up the Roman administration would most often take Roman names just like the majority of others did. Even if many Romans (I mean Italic Romans) took often Greek names, it is known that many Greeks rising in the Roman administration adopted Roman names, at least for administration use - it eased their work and declared their fidelity to the Empire they worked in. So if Greeks did so I cannot imagine that Britons (or others) would do otherwise. In that way we cannot easily know how many Britons rose the administrative levels.... now I remember back in my student days I had paid a visit to Sheffield and while touring the surrounding hills (i do not even remember why) some local told me proudly that Sheffield like Rome and Konstantinople has 7 hills and that Konstantine was a... Sheffield man (his father was serving there)! Konstantius was not a Sheffield man nor his son Konstantine but it is likely that in their service there would be more than 1-2 of Yorkshire men (though if they would find their way to Byzantion they would get dissapointed with locals considering beer an effeminate drink!!!).
-
Message 30
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 24th August 2009
I do not believe there is any evidence to suggest that any native Briton rose to prominence in the empire. No doubt there would be some who would have been local dignitaries or officals but, unless there have been some recent discoveries, there is not even any evidence for a Briton reaching the rank of centurion in the imperial army (as opposed to auxiliaries who may have been led by their own chieftains). Tacitus, in his Hiostories mentionms British auxiliary units being based in Rome during the troubles of A.D.69 but make sno mention of any officers.
Iwould tend to disagree with Nik on the Roman name smasking origins. Many Roman gravestones demosntarte that citiznes of the empire usually mentioned their place of origin as they seem to hav ewanted as much about them to be commemorated as possible. Of course, the expense of carving too many letters on a stone may have inhibited this, but, from what I understand, no gravestone declaring British origin for anyone of remotely senior rank, whether military or civilian has yet been found.
Unlike many provinces who embraced Roman culture, Britain seems to have maintained a rather insular stance (pun intended). While Spaniards, Greeks and Africans rose to help govern or even rule the empire, the native Britons appear to have been content to remain British. I am sure that I have a book somewhere which claims that remains of large public buildings sich as temples, basilicas, etc, are relatively rare in Britain compared to other parts of the empire. Of course, it may just be that we haven't found them yet, but the suggestion is that not many Britons were interested in putting their hands in their pockets to fund such public works. -
Message 31
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Hello Andy Host,
In my opinion the Roman emperor Claudius conquered Britain to maintain his prestige. This leaves open the question why the Romans stayed in Britain for so long.
One has to consider the political and military conjuncture that Claudius was facing. Gaul being Romanized the Romans had no use for the Roman legions in Gaul anymore. Sending the now superfluous legions to the Rhine or the East would greatly enhance the status of the commanders that were to receive the legions from Gaul, making them too powerful in case they had a fall-out with the emperor. The Roman emperors were great believers of that famous Roman adage 鈥淒ivide et Empera鈥 and applied it not only to their enemies, but to their commanders, too. So the emperors thought it expedient to let the Roman legions stay in Britain now that they were no longer needed in Gaul.
I even remember seeing a program in which it was maintained that Hadrian鈥檚 Wall was put up not so much to keep the Scots out, but to keep the Roman legions with something to do to prevent them from marching to Rome. I鈥檓 sorry that I can鈥檛 remember the name of the program.
In the end the decision to send the legions to Britain didn鈥檛 do much good to the Roman Empire, though. In 69 the legions in Britain joined the Rhine army in Vitellius successful rebellion against emperor Otho. -
Message 32
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 24th August 2009
I even remember seeing a program in which it was maintained that Hadrian鈥檚 Wall was put up not so much to keep the Scots out, but to keep the Roman legions with something to do to prevent them from marching to Rome. I鈥檓 sorry that I can鈥檛 remember the name of the program.
听
It's just as well that you have forgotten the name of a program that spouts forth such rubbish. -
Message 33
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 24th August 2009
It's just as well that you have forgotten the name of a program that spouts forth such rubbish.
听
The 1st Cohort of Tungrians at Vindolanda in the early 2nd century were only 236 strong of a nominal 757, it doesn't appear that there was much threat from the north. -
Message 34
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 24th August 2009
You infer from the strength of ONE cohort at ONE fort, over a limited period, that there was not much threat from the north?
-
Message 35
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Well this was their strength just prior to commencement of the construction of the wall.
Only one of the 6 Centurions was at Vindolanda, 2 were with the half of the Cohort at Coria (Corbridge) on the other side of the country. 3 Centurions were away with a handful of troops, one of them in London.
This appears an odd disposition if there was a pressing military need for the wall. -
Message 36
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Coria is by no means "on the other side of the country". I happen to live in Northern England, and I know Corbridge well. It is fairly centrally placed, or perhaps I should say east central, (and Vindolanda is west central) and was an important supply depot, so OF COURSE, soldiers would regularly go there. The main point is that the soldiers were deployed around the military zone (apart from one you say sent to London) that Hadrian's Wall and all its associated forts formed. A huge complex and well-planned system can only have been to repel the real and present threat of raiders/invaders from the north.
-
Message 37
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Whoever said that there was a "pressing" need, military or otherwise, for Hadrian's Wall?
Not Hadrian anyway. -
Message 38
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Hadrian saw the need for a wall, because he ordered it to be built "to separate the Romans from the barbarians".
-
Message 39
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 24th August 2009
Coria is by no means "on the other side of the country". I happen to live in Northern England, and I know Corbridge well. It is fairly centrally placed, or perhaps I should say east central, (and Vindolanda is west central)
听
2 to 3 days march apart. -
Message 40
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 24th August 2009
The Wall has been discussed both here and in more exalted circles, at length and never, not even once, have I heard anyone seriously postulate that it was an attempt to counter any sort of "immediate" threat from north of it. It was a delimiter, and in time a defence, but never a structure put up to counter a specific threat at a specific juncture.
If it was then Hadrian, despite all evidence to the contrary, was paranoid. Perhaps, Haesten, you can describe this historically elusive threat from your increasingly impressive sources? -
Message 41
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
If it was then Hadrian, despite all evidence to the contrary, was paranoid. Perhaps, Haesten, you can describe this historically elusive threat from your increasingly impressive sources?
听
Fascinating Nordmann!
-
Message 42
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Are you referring fascinating to nordmann or vice versa?
You really must tighten up on your allusions! -
Message 43
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
2 to 3 days march apart听
No, one day. The 2 places are 20km (12 miles) apart (it is a complete lie to say that Coria was "at the other end of the country") as the crow flies, and while they could not fly, the roads were pretty straight.
"The Stanegate ran between the forts at Corbridge and Carlisle, via other forts at Chesterholm and Nether Denton. These forts were spaced out along the road one day's march apart"
www.roman-britain.org
It was also possible to travel by river (which is 3km from Vindolanda), a short day downstream, but obviously a long day's struggle coming back upstream with the supplies. -
Message 44
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
From my impressive sources, Nordmann.
it doesn't appear that there was much threat from the north.
听
Ask your impressive mates in Oslo to explain it to you! -
Message 45
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Haesten - before you implode completely in a cornucopia of hiss.
Trying to ascribe reasons to the building of Hadrian's Wall (the clue is in the title) without considering Hadrian's policy towards Rome's boundaries in general is like trying to figure out why plumbed wash-hand basins aren't fitted with wheels. Obsessing about the reputed deployment of the military in its vicinity at an arbitrary moment in time (and being factually inaccurate about in the process) simply compounds your own misunderstanding of how such a question should be answered and leads you to draw fanciful conclusions of sense only to yourself.
One doesn't need "impressive friends" to realise when an amateur plumber has fitted wheels to one's bathroom fitting and intends to "run with it". It is a matter of personal discretion of course whether one chooses to attempt to explain his folly to him. -
Message 46
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
The Host should be aware of a discussion that was started by one priscilla several months ago
-
Message 47
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Getting back to the subject of the thread (if that's ok with the wallians) - one interesting, and in a sense ironic, legacy of Roman Britain is its own present royal family, albeit in a convoluted manner.
Governorship of Britain, and subsequent mercantile activity based in Britain, helped re-elevate the then very much depleted "auctoritas" and fortunes of the gens Actii, the antescendants of the later noble Italian Este family, who even later through male line descendancy became the Hanoverian rulers from which stock George I was plucked. -
Message 48
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
No, one day.
听
Yes my mistake, the Stangate was three days march.
Still the 1st Cohort manning two of the four forts doesn't suggest the rest of the legion was up to much, the 1st Centurion of the 1st Cohort was Colonel of the legion, it could have been him in London. -
Message 49
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Haesten - before you implode completely in a cornucopia of hiss.
One doesn't need "impressive friends" to realise when an amateur plumber has fitted wheels to one's bathroom fitting and intends to "run with it". It is a matter of personal discretion of course whether one chooses to attempt to explain his folly to him.
听
Nordmann, you lost the plot in msg40. -
Message 50
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Your plots can often not be lost too quickly, Haesten.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.