Ancient and Archaeology聽 permalink
Britannia - A Step Too Far?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 11th July 2010
I have always thought of Britannia as being a rich province worth invading and keeping by the Romans but many people do not beleive that and think that it was a poor province.
As we know that it took 50,000 troops to keep this uneconomic province in the first 150 years, possibly reducing to 20,000 but being topped up time and again by Roman emperors over 200 years or so, was this a huge drain on the Empire?
Is this the reason that the Romans didn't go into Ireland as they never conquered the whole of Britain and couldn't have warring tribes on their flank?
Was this drain the cause behind the collapse of the Empire in the West - a step too far?
TA -
Message 2
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Hi TA
Firstly, before even attempting to answer this question, we have to remember that Britain was part of the Roman empire for nearly 400 years. An explanation that fits a situation in AD 100 could be quite inappropriate two centuries later. Secondly, although we frequently know the names of units and their notional strengths, it is not possible to calculate the total number of troops in Britain by a simple process of multiplication and addition. Nominally three legions were stationed in Britain; this, for example, would give a total of 15,000 men, except that the practice of sending legionary vexillations to serve overseas was common. I'd be interested to 'see your working' that generates a total of 50,000 troops.
As early as the age of Augustus the risks of imperial expansion were obvious. Even Trajan, that best and greatest of emperors, overstretched the resources available to him with his eastern conquests. The original invasion of Britain was exceptional, undertaken by Claudius for individual political reasons; a non-military emperor wished to established his credibility and expansion of the Catuvellauni posed problems for Roman allies. Making an invasion 'pay' may have been earliest in the early days when there was land to be divided up, accumulations of precious metals to be seized, slaves to be traded, and loans to be given to the new elites. An area like modern Scotland, sparsely inhabited by warriors able to exploit the landscape, would have been a Roman Afghanistan; they were wise not to attempt permanent conquest. I'm sure that the conquest of Ireland was also planned in principal but evidently was abandoned, perhaps for the same reason.
So was Britain uneconomic and did it constitute a drain on the empire? There are signs that in the first two centuries AD the British economy actually grew. Agricultural production rose and more land was cultivated. There was a greater population in Britain than 1000 years earlier or 500 years later. A greater population of workers were involved in non-agricultural production and services than ever before. Division of labour promoted increased production and distribution of luxury goods. Taxes levied in the provinces like Britain which could be spent in Rome and on the provincial armies. There were technical developments: water-mills, stone quarrying, aqueducts, widespread use of iron and improved business practices.
There does seem to be a decline of long-distance trade in the late 2nd 鈥 early 3rd century and British urban communities may not have been a long-term success. Once the taxation system started to struggle the military were forced to depend on donations in kind from the local population (annona militaris). British units must have increasingly come to depend on its own resources. The size of units decreased. Legions (whatever this title meant in the 3-4th C) shrank from 5000 to 1000 and the number of occupied forts continued to be reduced. In some areas the vici were abandoned and the inhabitants may have moved into the forts. After the mid 2nd century it had became more difficult to move legions from their bases. It became even more common to post vexillations. These are believed to have consisted of 1000 men and might have been brigaded with vexillations from other legions. The old style legions were too large and too immobile for rapid response in a crisis. Ultimately the Diocletianic legions may have been of only 1000 men.
Did the drain caused by Britain lead to the collapse of the west? Absolutely not; no way. In the 4th century there was a golden age of villa farms. British agriculture was less affected by barbarian incursions than that of Gaul. Famously the future emperor Julian fed his troops with British wheat and could afford to build a fleet to ship it. Within a generation of the 'barbarian conspiracy', if this really occurred, Stilicho could move British troops to northern Italy to fend off Alaric. Despite this an army was left with which Constantine III, cognisant of his imperial responsibilities, could use against the barbarians who crossed the Rhine in 406. Not much of a drain I would say.
Best wishes
TP -
Message 3
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Hi TP/TA
The figure of 50,000 is also quoted as a fair estimate in Terry Jones's "Barbarians" book and series, though I would doubt that this could ever have been an average, or even a maximum which applied over a long time.
But having said that, Britain must have been horrendously expensive to maintain for much of its time as a provincial entity. The Gallic model just never seemed to work in Britain and policing its inhabitants seems to have been a constant requirement, even during the relatively "quieter" first 150 years post-Iceni.
British silver and lead seem to have been the key factors in making the Romans decide it was all worth it. Without that silver the Roman currency was virtually valueless. Once a dependency on its use had been established then Rome was effectively locked into a political requirement to maintain the colony. -
Message 4
Posted by prof_muster (U14549653) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Usually any Roman occupation started by giving the Title of Socius-Romanorum, of FEDERATI- Romanorum to neighbouring nations,
First the Romans would buy agricultural products that was not grown on ITALIAN ROCKY SOIL( EXCEPT WINE/RETSINA,ofcourse.)
In 30 bc Egypt's deserts provided never the less for Roman proletarian wheat, than Britain & France
and lastly East Europe e.g. the Romanians & SARMATIANS( but when they protested of Roman freeloading by Emp. Honorius, ) they were decimated only a band of Sarmatian Cavalry survived which were sent-off to' Britain'.
WAS, ROMAN presence indicated by Coin-hoards ?
Roman coinage may have been used prior to 50 bc because the Celts that occupied Britain, traded and lived on both sides of the Strait of Dover.
For High-Seas transport the distance from Dover to Dune-Querque ( Dune-Kerk.)in 50 bc, must have been less than the present coastal-span-crossing of 13 Sea-Miles.
KING ARTHUR, d.d. 450-540 ad,
had predecessors by this' newly found' title 'Imperator- Brittanorum'
Because Gen.Postumus and Gen.Allectus both bore that title although they were considered;'Rebel' British imperators, which Constantius-2 or 3 had to pacify.
Caesar Julianus defended TRIER(= 'the Roma nova-secunda.')in 350 ad, against the up-comming salian-Saxons who than diverted to Holland and occupied Northern-France
Despite this Saxonic seacoast occupation Julian got Wheat from Britain? Yes but by Saxon-chartered ships.
We must be careful, about the GEO-name ' British or Bretagne', the whole of West/North France was called Brittany around 500 ad and Amorica before that.
450 ad,
Seems, to be a key-turning point in British-Roman-occupation
Only since, 450 ad, the European Romans complained of rapid Rising Sealevel( about 2 meters in 500 years > d.d.450-950 ad. and underwater Sea-Dune forming.)
What may have looked as barren coastal or bad-lands in the Canal, until 450 ad, now became waterlogged coastal tidal-morasses not usable, for agriculture by the Roman-occupants but as cattle-grass fodder-pastures by the invading Saxons( despite these higher Roman -taxes.)
450 ad seems to be the common date that British King Vortigern( a corruption of 'high-Commander'=Vercincetorix.)appealed to mercenaries Hengist and Horsa for their more-Sea-worthy Troop ships.\
For those who have NOT seen the Alternative ARTHUR -story film:
King- Arthur/ARTORIUS, also styled himself Imperator Britanorum, but not in present Britain but in Northern FRANCE particularlily in Picardia & Normandy and gave his territorial name to the arear now named: ' ARTOIS '(= Arthur's FIEF.')
Thus when the Normands entered Hastings in 1066 ad they took the Legend of ARTORIUS with them.
This simply means that this highly famous part of ' British' History took place in Europe.
'King'/ generalissimo/Imperator- Britanorum' ARTORIUS, battled his ' Saxon-invaders not at Mount-Badonicus in BATH, but at Berg-Bad-BADEN (= BattenBerg.)in Bavaria( now ironically considered the be the'old'heart-land of the Saxon-nation. !
Conclusion:
Like others have surmised before in these messageboards,
Romans were eithert intrested in arable but yet unused lands or in Silver-Loads that were quickly processed.
But only when the mean European Climate changed from Dry to wet, and neither Silvermines or arable lands were exploited the Saxon took over with Cattlebreeding introducing by the way a cheaper sort of Papyrus named' Vellum.'Parchment.
Sorry for this lengthy yarn about British roman Economy.
Prof Muster. -
Message 5
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Dear Prof Muster
You don't need to apologise about a 'lengthy yarn' but I think you would have more success in making your points (and obtaining replies to your posts) if you would stick more closely to the thread topic, and also enter into genuine discussion over your more outlandish statements.
I really don't wish to be unkind but it sometimes appears that on each of the many threads that you post on you simply draw on various permutations of the same master list of controversial comments. This is a great pity since you obviously enjoy ancient history and read widely in this area. I'm sure that you would get more response from other posters if you would concentrate on making you points clear on one or two threads at a time.
May I suggest, if TA will excuse us, that we move slightly off topic and that you concentrate on a small number of statements from your last post which are all of interest. I would be grateful if, in simply words, you would answer three questions:
1 What is the evidence that the emperor Julian moved his wheat in ships chartered from the Saxons?
2 What evidence do you have, aside from a faint similarity in pronunciation, that the siege of Mons Badonicus took place at Battenberg in Bavaria?
3 One might describe Postumus and Allectus as 'rebel British imperators' I suppose although this seems an oversimplification in the case of Postumus's Gallic Empire. In any case Postumus was killed by his own troops, and Allectus by the forces of Constantius Chlorus. What do Constantius II and Constantius III have to do with this issue?
I write in anticipation or a clear and concise response!
TP -
Message 6
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Hi Nordmann
Thanks for information about the derivation of the 50,000 figure. I would concur with your doubts about its accuracy. I may be wrong but for long periods of time I don't see the military grip on Britain being all that tight; although it was 鈥榖acked鈥 by large central resources. The civilian areas of southern Britain, like those in Gaul and south Spain, seem to have no permanent military presence. In any case we don鈥檛 even really know what was going on where there were soldiers stationed. Northern Britain, for example, is large; the local people might have seen little more than an occasional patrol.
Rome had requirements for lead and silver that must have been very difficult to meet. As you know the metals are normally found together so solving one unmet need tends to fill the other. I have no problem with the fact that a rumour of a plentiful new source of silver (even if ultimately this were found to be untrue) would be an important consideration when planning an invasion.
I do have difficulty with Britain being 'horrendously expensive to maintain' since I don't know that we have the facts on which such a conclusion could be based. The main costs to the central government must have been the cash payments to the military. The question must resolve down to whether direct and indirect taxation within the British provinces met those costs or not. If the answer is 'no' then could those costs have been met more easily by redeploying the troops to another province? I make the, possibly unwarranted, assumptions that the Romans overall had the largest army they felt they could afford, and that most of the fixed costs would have been a burden to the state no matter which province accommodated the troops.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 7
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Hi TP
Roman military artefacts and remains in Britain, when compared to Gaul, seem much more numerous, as do too the number of fortified bases established within the province which seem to have been in constant use, albeit with variable populations. While one cannot draw a definitive conclusion from this with regard to exact numbers of soldiery, one can safely assume that the Roman occupation of Britain and their control over its denizens did not proceed along the same lines as Gaul after "pacification".
I favour the theory that Britain was never fully Romanized at all and that a significant proportion of its citizens simply carried on as they'd always done in as far as they could. That they so quickly adapted to Germanic language afterwards seems to support this assumption. The Germans and Franks who moved into Gaul on the other hand found a culture so Romanized that it was they who had to adapt their tobgue. Not so in Britain.
If that was indeed the case then it is not unreasonable to assume that Rome spent a lot of time and resources policing a society which had never fully integrated (a much more difficult task than policing a compliant society), and the general rule of thumb estimation that Britain always required three times the military resources used to patrol the whole of Iberia would ring true. -
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 12th July 2010
"tobgue" above should of course be "tongue".
-
Message 9
Posted by Priscilla (U14315550) on Monday, 12th July 2010
There are certainly more solid Roman remains in Gaul, the ones in Britain were apparently soon demolished and perhaps of less sound construction. However, Gaul surely had a different attitude to Roman domination I suspect because of the two way trade links - and routes. Being an island fewer British middlemen would have made the long journeys with their goods; the Romans were the wholesalers.... if that makes sense.
Not only did the language not catch on, neither did the Roman notions of design. The monasteries - first in Ireland and then mainland British monateries soon developed the ancient and magnificent 'Celtic' design of curve and embellishment.... as if the Roman influence had never been except that it was used for writing Latin from their Christian Roman homebase. And I think Gaul was ripe for change at the time but the islands were not, so indeed they suffered the Romans for the most part, went along with whatever was on offer but they did not adopt much with slavish awe.
We had to wait for the 麻豆约拍 to do that.
Perhaps I should stop there.
Regards, P. -
Message 10
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Hi Lady and Gentlemen
So much to agree with and disagree with but certainly many bits that slot in but as usual there are the questions.
If we can agree that the Romans felt that the province was worth invading because of agriculture, slaves and precious metals (and apparently if I remember rightly hunting dogs!) Nordmann makes the point that silver was the base for Roman currency.
There was a lot of silver and gold in the hills in the West Country and Wales so much silver in fact that Spain moaned that Britannia Silver was ruining their economy.
Now could it be as TP has been telling me for years that the mints ran out of silver or that it was substantially reduced because Britannia no longer had as much silver as before for export? So was there a move to start reducing the dependency on Britannia after this time?
I would also agree with Priscilla that the Roman Society did not percolate that far down into the Tribal Society but one of the interesting points is that it obviously linked to the cities and the aristocracy and possibly to the villas but was it any lower than this?
This would fit in with TP鈥檚 theory of later 鈥淎nglo / Saxon鈥 aristocracy replacement via small warbands rather than great armies marching across Britain post the Roman exit.
When the Romans were reduced it was the cities, that as they were not only a market place but a method of control of the local inhabitants, that gradually became defunct as much from the administrative change being slowly reduced because of military withdrawal as much as the reduction in coin.
We know that Latin remained but this was the language of Administration and the Church which probably were inter dependant and were retained because whatever the changes in society you need consistency and continuity to rule effectively.
I must admit that I agree with Nordmann鈥檚 views that there was a pre-ponderance of Roman military, you only need to look at the Ampitheatres all over the country which would indicate a lot of training of troops all over the place apart from a large amount of garrisons which are often repaired.
There is almost constant unrest throughout the occupation and I know that this is a harsh word and is possibly not the case at all times throughout the country but there are rebellions, acclimations of Emperors, invasions from the North and the East and the West etc.
So although the province supplied wheat to the troops on the Rhine, was probably self sufficient in its own right for food (apart from olives and oil and some wine) would not the constant warring have been the drain as it kept troops tied up in Britannia rather than being available for Gaul or where they may have been needed.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 11
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Hi Nordmann & Priscilla
It's remarkable that in two short posts you both touch on all the most difficult, and interesting, aspects of Roman Britain. Please don't interpret my post as disagreement since I'm really not sure I know enough to either agree or disagree. Many of my old certainties are looking decided shaky these days!
I have no trouble with the view that Britain was not fully Romanised. In fact I would wish to go further and suggest that the Romans never intended to Romanise Britain. They certainly wished to create a Latin speaking, land-holding elite, who would produce wealth, consume luxury goods, collect revenues, and create the towns and institutions that to the Romans constituted civilised living. I imagine that the Roman governors knew little, and cared less, about what the British peasant class got up to providing that taxes were collected and obligations met.
The trajectories of post-Imperial Britain and post-Imperial Gaul are certainly very different and this has to be explained. To be fair the Franks encountered a moderately flourishing Roman province and had an extra 50 years exposure to official Roman institutions. Clovis was a Christian, and a catholic Christian at that, by the end of the 5th century, a good century before the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon kings. It does appear that the Franks valued villa estates, although they wished to appropriate the best for themselves. Their evident appreciation of Roman culture included the adoption of its language, although I'm not sure they were actually obliged to speak it.
Britain is very different. I wish I knew what tongue was being spoken in eastern England when the Anglo-Saxons arrived: a Celtic language, a Latin derived Romance language, or even a Germanic dialect brought by Roman foederati? Anyway the Anglo-Saxons encountered what was, very definitely, a post-Imperial society. Decayed towns, abandoned villa estates, and a very different religion. Things were very much better in west Britain but in the east Anglo-Saxon technology thrived in areas where roof tiles, hypocausts, and mosaic pavements were no longer on offer.
There do seem to be a great many military artefacts in Britain. Could a part of the difference be attributed to the recording system here? The Portable Antiquities Scheme has been associated with a torrent of small finds produced by metal detecting. But great chunks of Britain were pacified. There is not much evidence for a Roman presence in the south-east outside the Shore Forts, and virtually none at all in the south-west.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 12
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 12th July 2010
Hi TP
Regarding the language spoken by the people in Eastern England could they still be talking the same language as when the Romans invaded them.
Is it not possible that they reacted exactly the same way as many occupied peoples where the Administrative language is used for commerce or alliances but the native language is used for social purposes?
This is much the case in the British Empire.
Could it in fact be that they spoke an early English all along and took on some Latin Words when the Romans were here, 鈥淕erman鈥 words of the new 鈥淯pper Class鈥 when the Anglo / Saxons arrived, similarly to what happened with the invasion of the Normans and the adaptation of some French words?
Is there any evidence from the Roman trading with the Britons before the invasion that might point towards the language that was used for trading at that time.
Is it possible that in fact parts of the South East and East had in fact been abandoned by the Romans and left as a buffer or indeed as a payment for foederati who were stationed there or for retired troops from the wall?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 13
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
Hi TA
I think it is fine to use modern parallels to produce possible interpretations of the the linguistic situation within late pre-Roman Iron Age (LPRIA) Britain. Just so long as we remember that an analogy is an illustration, not evidence.
Since I am fluent in only a single language I have to constantly remind myself that there is nothing 'natural' about this situation. World-wide people commonly speak a local language and an official national language. Later they may need to acquire a third 'international language', often English, for reasons of business or education. There is no reason to suppose the situation was different in the past.
So in Roman Britain, while we can safely assume that the imposed administrative language you propose was Latin, nonetheless we may be looking for two 'native' languages. One used by LPRIA elites and a second used by rural peasants. Actually the situation is more difficult still since we cannot automatically assume that the same 'native' languages were in use throughout Britain.
In the absence of writing or inscriptions (except on LPRIA coins) what evidence could we have? As far as I can see there are only two types: the distribution of modern languages, and the names of local people and places recorded by the Romans on their arrival.
Taking the south and east of England we can see that the Romans would use purely Latin names for their wholly new settlements eg Caistor near Norwich (Venta Icenorum 鈥 the market place of the Iceni) or Chichester (Noviomagnus 鈥 the new place). More commonly however they seem to have adapted existing names eg Pevensey (Anderitum) or Colchester (Camulodunum). The importance is in the second elements of these names *ritum and *dunum. They mean ford and stronghold respectively, and they have Welsh and Irish parallels. More important still there are continental parallels eg Augustulodunum (Autun) and Augustuloritum (Limoges).
I think the place name evidence strongly suggests that when the Romans arrived in southern Britain the people, or at any rate the people that mattered, probably were speaking a Celtic language similar to Gaulish. The absence of a modern Romance language or Celtic language in southern Britain still needs an explanation but I think that such an explanation has to be sought in events during the Roman period or its immediate aftermath.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 14
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
Hi TP
I hadn't considered a third language but of course you are right.
Could it be that we under estimate the inhabitants of Britain pre-Roman, their organisational abilities and their trading links and export potential.
Also their political links are important as I beleive that there was a sub plot to the Roman invasions where the links with the "Celts" of Gaul were a concern to the continued resistance against the Romans because of the support from "Britain".
They say that history is written by the victors and the Romans won. We only have their word for it that the "Celts" (sorry about using the word) were backward.
Artefacts would tend to indicate that this was far from the case but because we have no written history from the Celts we can only guess.
Now just as an hypothesis could it be that the common language was a "Welsh / Irish" base, that the language of Trade and Administration was as you say Latin but that there was a "common language" that was used as a communication tool throughout the tribes in "Britain" and that this slowly became during the Roman occupation and with the increase of "Germanic" forces being used in Britain (and retiring here) that this language actually became "English".
So that as with Latin, German and French these invasions became absorbed into the "English Culture" as there was no mass immigrations of the Romans the "Anglo Saxons", Vikings or Normans that overwhelmed the native inhabitants but that the retired soldiery had a much larger effect on the population than we suppose.
Welsh and Cornish remain as a relic as there simply was not the penetration of invaders settling in those parts of the Country post Roman occupation.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 15
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
Hi TA,
Although it may be true that history is written by the victors, it is even more certain that history is written by those than can write. An Iron Age survivor of Claudius's invasion who wished to speak to posterity had only the outlets of song or spoken epic poetry.
I really don't know that we do, globally, underestimate the inhabitants of Iron Age Britain. Who are the 'we' you have in mind? In modern England and Scotland there were the most amazing IA cultures. They may not have have the organisational capacity of classical Greece, Rome or China, but they had nothing to be ashamed of either. In any case we don't have to guess exactly; hill forts, brochs and torcs do tell their own story.
There were certainly trading links between Britain and Gaul, and ejected British nobility don't seem to have find it difficult to find their way to Rome. Did the Britons really help the Gauls resist; or was this Julius Caesar's propaganda?
As far as your hypothesis about Iron Age British languages are concerned I think you should do the hard work of thinking about what types of evidence might touch upon this problem.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 16
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 15th July 2010
Hi All
Thank you for your observations. I am in danger of wandering off post here so will move on...and as TP says I need to think through the linguistic implications which are complex.
I feel that Britain was somehow a major factor in the affairs of the Roman Empire with a number of Emperors and rebellions originating here, armies crossing from Europe into Britain a province that was held down through military force alone and never fully integrated.
Was it a poor province? I don't think so - it was rich in metals and agriculture and whilst it was supporting an army with an administration it could all hang together.
In fact I suspect that the Roman Empire could continue to exist, as the model was nearly self sustaining as long as there was constant expansion.
Instead the Empire changed direction and destroyed itself by looking inwards and by constant internal fighting.
In this case two heads were not better than one.
Was Britannia a step too far?
Possibly - it stopped their expansion policy because they got bogged down trying to keep a frontier that was not only on the Northern border but was also more and more the whole of the country.
Yet when the miltary left the Country was not overun which perhaps you would expect in fact it seems that the Romano Brythons that were left managed to protect their borders.....or was there a considerable military force left behind by Constantine III with competent Commanders?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 17
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 26th July 2010
Some years ago, the 麻豆约拍 did a "Living in the Iron Age" repeat of "Living in the Past". The accompanying book suggested that the Wealden iron smelters provided a considerable part of the iron required to arm the Roman armies. Note that I don't assert that as true, just put it on the table for consideration.
-
Message 18
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Friday, 30th July 2010
But what did they 'smelt' the iron with ?
Wouldn't idustrial burning of forests deforest large areas and cause land-erosion ?
Cookery on twiggs alone is still done in the Sahara-deserts but Iron-smelting. . . -
Message 19
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Friday, 30th July 2010
Emperor Julian( dd 361-363 ad{Kennedy's years!)
was still a minor-Caesar( under Constans-2 at the time. He had to, virtually re-conquer North-Germany, for the Roman Empire, from the invading, barbaric Saxons.
However it were the ( Coastal-)Saxons that were the navigating people in 300 ad. around France & Britain. (allthough today we think of Saxons as wholly landbased tribes.)
POSTHUMUS & Allectus ( dd 220-250 ad.)were even dependant on Saxon Pirate-ships for logistics. Allectus even made official reports to Rome for imperial revenue-tax-reduction because of Trade-loss by Saxon piracy.
But he set these in scene for his own purse, when he got at loggerheads with the Saxon admiral, Allectus was killed, by his Aide de Champs, he took over the Piracy-game, but as an unable administrator, this secondlanguage-roman ( i forget his name.) could not hide the truth and was overcome by an expeditionary Roman army.
Constans-III and his father were only just visting Britain on a tour of Duty when the Father died, the son naturally had to be claimed New-Emperor, by accident in York( I think.)
I ignore whether Northern France was named Bretagne during Roman times.
The Story that around 500-555 ad Britons harrangued by ( british?)Saxons, went from Cornwall overseas into France-Amorica and re-named it Bretagne(= Brittania-Magna.)is a Fable.
There is an official confusion as which post- imperial counties belonged to Britany or Bretagne on the French mainland.
The original Bretagne would have comprized: a much larger area, perhaps it was the name pertaining to Posthumus Franco-British Empire ?
Normandy, Germania inferior, Belgica-inferior(= Artois.) Finistere and Amorica and the county of Syagrius(later reduced by Frankish king Dagobert-1( 600-612 ad.) to the present Bretagne.)
My theory,
In that case these 'Britons' did not fled from Cornwall into Bretagne but from Belgium into Western France, persued not by Saxons based on british Lands but from Saxons( e.g. the Salien-Frank-branch,led by Clovis.died 511 ad.) -
Message 20
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 30th July 2010
What did they smelt the iron with? Why, charcoal (alder for preference, it supposedly burns hotter. That makes no sense to me, I have to say. If it is carbon, it is carbon, and its burning will create exactly the same amount of energy per gramme irrespective of its provenance). The forests probably would not have been clear felled, but coppiced on a reasonably long cycle. You get better charcoal (and more controllably) from medium-sized billets of wood.
BTW - can anyone tell me when Dunquerque moved so close to the UK? 17 nautical miles? Even Gris Nez is 21 miles, 34 Km. from the nearest point of England, and the "land bridge" was long, long gone by the time we are discussing. -
Message 21
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 31st July 2010
Hi Prof Muster
As usual your chronology is confusing. I don't mean to be critical but your posts would really be so much easier to follow if you could arrange your comments in date order.
Can you explain what makes you think that Carausius and Allectus depended on Saxon pirate ships for logistics? Past experience teaches me that you never respond to requests like this but I'd really like to know your source. The more orthodox view is that Carausius had a Roman fleet which he augmented with Gallic trading vessels. I think you have the names confused here. Carausius, having ruled Britain and part of Gaul for several years, was assassinated by Allectus his finance minister. Allectus subsequently died in battle with Julius Asclepiodotus who was Constantius I's general.
The emperor who was proclaimed in York in AD 308 was Constantine I ('the great'). His father was the Constantius I ('Chlorus') mentioned in the previous paragraph. I'm not sure who you mean by 'Constans III'.
As Caesar Julian, between AD 356-360 was fighting in northern Gaul. He defeated the Franks and the Alamanni. He is not known for his defeat of 'invading barbarian Saxons' although he would certainly have to protect his supply lines from Britain down the Rhine from Saxon intervention.
Modern Brittany was in the Roman province of Lugdunensis. There had probably been trade links between the Armorican peninsula and the south-west of Britain for centuries. I think that it is quite possibly that Brittany was named by Britons, but clearly not by Saxons. The British forces of Magnus Maximus and Constantine III went to Gaul and we really don't know what happened to survivors. A rather mysterious British king, Riothamus, and his army were fighting the Goths in northern Gaul around AD 470. Brittany would be a reasonable forward base for this force.
TP
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 聽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.