Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Roman Britain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roman rule is established

[edit]

The last sentence of the first paragraph looks strange - as if a chunk has been deleted after gemina. Does anyone know what was meant to be there? Vignaux 19:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I patched in the original text - looks like 69.223.184.137 deleted a few bits of the article last year and this one slipped through the revert process. adamsan 20:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does "The governor... was forced to abandon the city -- and anyone who could retreat with him" mean that the governor abandoned some citzens as well? If so, this sentence is somewhat ambiguous, as it also sounds like a confusing incomplete sentence like:

  1. The governor was forced to abandon the city
  2. And anyone who could retreat with him...[did so and went back to Rome] or [did not do so and stayed in Britain].

Wouldn't a hypothetical sentence be more clear here? "forced to abandon the city -- and anyone who could have retreated with him"?

--Menchi 14:46 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Menchi, the governor saw that London was indefensible with the few troops he arrived with, & more troops were two weeks away. I don't know Tacitus' exact words -- although this event is retold in practically every history of Roman Britain I have read -- but the governor said in effect to the populace, "We're leaving. Everyone is more than welcome to leave with us, but if you can't come, or you can't keep up, you are at the mercy of the rebels." Then he broke camp & began to march away.
If you can figure out a better way to express that in the article, please do. While I wrote the original article, it is but a skeleton I fully expect others to add flesh & clothing to. -- llywrch 23:23 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, the background helps. I've paraphrased the sentence by breaking it down into two sentences. But the phrase "leaving some behind" could use your expertise to be more precise:
  1. Do you know if it a lot of commoners were left behind? (A # would be nice, but a qualification (some, most, few) in its place is fine too.)
  2. And are the majority of the abandoned citizens Roman citzens?
--Menchi 23:34 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Citizenship and inequality

[edit]

As I wrote about the citizen questions above, I thought of another important topic for the article.

  1. Were many native Briton commoners made citizens of the Empire?
  2. If so, how were their status inequal to those of Roman citizens?
  3. How about the status of those (partially) Romanized Anglo-Saxon royalties?
  4. Approximately how many Romans immigrated to Britain during this time?

--Menchi 23:41 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Good questions. Based on my reading, the best possible answers are:

  1. The town-council members of certain classes of towns by Roman practice would be made citizens. Also, a number of natives whose patrons were able to obtian it for them -- some of the local Celtic ings might receive this gift (IIRC, Togidubnus was one). But then around AD 205 the Emperor Caracalla made all inhabitants of the Rooman Empire except for slaves citizens. The actual percentage of Roman citizens until that year is unknown, & would be based on guesses of how many citizens there were in Britain, & how many people lived on that island.
  2. The non-citizens in Britain were called peregrini, & lived by their own laws. The principal handicaps were that they could not own land with an Italic title, could serve as a Legionaire in the army (although they could serve in an auxiliary unit, & be made a Roman citizen upon discharge), nor could they inherit from a Roman citizen - but I may be wrong about the last point. In short, for the vast number of British inhabitants who were peasants tied to the soil, there would be little difference in their lives whether they were citizens or not.
  3. The term "(partially) Romanized Anglo-Saxon royalties" is somewhat nonsensical. By & large the Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britain after the end of the Roman period. A few were settled in Britian as foederati, but exactly who they were & where they lived is extremely hypothetical. (At least one archeologist has suggested that some early Anglo-Saxon settlements in the Thames valley around Oxford may have been foederati, but I haven't kept up with the current secondary literature to know if this is still considered possible. The early emperors of the Byzantine Empire did influence some of the Anglo-Saxon kings (I seem to remember Edwin of Deira using a standard copied after a Byzantine model, but I would have to re-read Bede before I added it to the Wikipedia.)
  4. The number of Roman immigrants is also debateable. First one would have to define
  • What is meant by "Roman immigrants" - are we talking about people from Rome alone, Italy, or anyone who is a citizen, or anyone from the rest of the Empire?
  • How do we count the number of non-military immigrants? Obviously traders came to Britain, some to settle, some to merely make extended visits; also aristocrats from the rest of the Empire would send factors to manage their business interests in the island; there would also be a number of camp-followers who came with the military. But I'm not sure if there is any way to estimate the number of people who came to Britain to settle, &, say, become farmers -- or even determine if more than a negligible number did so.
  • The number of soldiers who came with the invasion & stayed there is easier to estimate: while Claudius deployed 4 legions & associated auxiliaries to conquer Britain, one legion was later transferred to the other frontiers & for most of its history Britain had 3 legions stationed on it. I've seen estimates of 30,000 to 45,000 soldiers present in Roman Britain.

As you see, Menchi, there's a lot of guesswork involved answering these questions, & I'm only menitoning the problems I can recall off the top of my head. I could have worked more of this information into Wikipedia, but I was just happy enough to write an article with some kind of logical order to it, & call it good enough, so I could pay attention to other topics that lacked even this much treatment. (And these topics might fit better under the article Romano-British, which I consider would discuss the social & cultural history of the people associated with Roman Britain.) --llywrch 17:41 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Do we really need a list of "Romano-British settlements" here, when we also have an article of Roman Place Names? I don't see the point of this duplication. -- llywrch 02:59, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just a point - Britain does have a language spoken by pre-Roman inhabitants, Welsh. True, it's not the main language, but nonetheless, it is one of the de facto official languages of the UK, and is spoken by quite a few people.

overlapping page

[edit]

This page overlaps considerably with Roman invasion of Britain. Perhaps they should be combined? (I posted a corresponding comment on Talk:Roman invasion of Britain. Fpahl 16:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

end of Roman rule

[edit]

I find Adamsan's redraft of this very helpful - thanks. A few points still need attention, I feel:

I don't know about coins, but, if it's true that coins from 378-388 are sparse, then that needs better explanation (378 is Adrianople, which will have diverted Gratian's attention, and Magnus Maximus was on the continent, presumably with most of the salaried troops, between 383 and 388 - this could be part of it; and does it suggest that failure to pay the British troops was one motive for Maximus' acclamation?). Do we need to mention that the London mint was closed by Constantine, and therefore all new coins needed to come in from Trier, or after Valentinian from the comitatus?
The discontinuance of pottery in Britain has attracted much attention and needs better coverage.
Pelagianism is a big subject and may not merit so much attention here.
I suspect that skipping straight from imperial administrators to warlords is wrong: the curiae of the civitates may have continued to operate collectively for some time in many cases, and certainly the picture painted by Gildas is vague enough to make this plausible. I have edited in this sense.
E A Thompson's peasant revolt is very plausible but a bit 1970s-marxisant; as there's no evidence I feel it should not be suggested here unless a competing theory is also offered.
Is there evidence for an acceleration of inflation in the late 4th century? I had thought the record was more for 3rd-century inflation problems leading to barter and taxation in kind, with a gradual return to a money economy all through the 4th century. I have removed the reference but would be happy to see it back if it is established.
It is not the case that "Prior to this time [405], raiding had been limited to the south east and east of Britain". It is true of course that the Saxon Shore forts erected in the 3rd century indicate that at that stage the east and south coasts were seen as more of a problem. But the "barbarian conspiracy" of 367, for example, certainly involved the Irish, and Stephen Johnson (Later Roman Britain, Paladin, 1982) has a map showing a range of new forts on the western coasts which he claims are fourth century, and Salway's Roman Britain (1982) seems to take a similar view. I have edited accordingly. I have retained the implication that the cause of the three late 4th-century British usurpations was resentment in the army at their lack of resources - but there is little evidence of this and it could have been other things such as problems with pay or supplies, resentment at corrupt or brutal commanders or governors, Pelagianism, or simple greed and ambition.

Mark O'Sullivan 09:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many of my edits came from Frere's Britannia which sadly doesn't go into enough detail to explain all that you ask. Regarding the coin issue, he gives no explicit reason for the decline in new currency from 378. Earlier, he does criticise archaeological techniques for producing the impression that no coins of Gratian were used on Hadrian's Wall and also says that the apparent rebound in currency circulation from 388 is attributable to a limited number of sites where a high proportion of Theodosian bronze indicates regional tax centres or anomalous places where business continues as usual. So perhaps it is all an illusion anyway. As for failure to pay the troops, it looks as though solidii were still coming into the province throughout the period (although in more limited numbers from the time of Maximus' troop withdrawals when there were so many fewer soldiers to pay). Frere's reason for Maximus' elevation was dismay amongst the soldiery over Gratian's favouritism in his German levies. I understand that Trier produced little bronze after 395 and supplies had to be made up from production in Rome. I thought Carausius' London mint closed in 326?
I agree there's more that can be written on the pottery and Pelagianism, perhaps it is time to think about dividing the whole article up. I see we now have a Sub-Roman Britain page onto which some of this material can be shifted. You are right to point out that the switch from civil government to warlords was as clear as I implied.
There are certainly explanations that do not involve Thomson's Bacaudic revolution in 409 and they should be included. Frere suggests that Constantine's officials were unable to cope with the big Saxon raid in 408 and so were kicked out by the natives the following year. By 410 he says the Britons would have reported their actions to the legitimate emperor (who had meanwhile broken with Constantine), and asked for help.
Frere talks about serious inflation during the last 20 years of the fourth century contributing to a return to barter but I realise that its effects would have pretty academic given the general dearth of coin at the time.
As for the raiding, that came from Malcolm Todd's Roman Britain who says there is no certain evidence for Irish raiding in the south west before 400 and he and I have ignored the earlier troubles and placed them conveniently in another chapter! Certainly there were fourth century forts in Cumbria and two in north west Wales but I am not aware of any others, where does Johnson put them?
We are doing well although the article is getting quite long now. I am am keen to produce a précis at some stage and hive more of the discussion off to subpages one day. adamsan 18:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this reply. To respond again:

It sounds as if it's the lack of troops which accounts for the drop in coin finds. I suppose a question in Britain might be what the impact on the rest of the economy was of the sudden slump in demand caused by the withdrawal of so many freespending soldiers under the usurpers.
Frere's reason for Maximus' elevation looks as if it comes straight from the sources. These are Prosper Tiro, Sulpicius Severus, Socrates, Sozomen, Philostorgius, Zosimus, Aurelius Victor and a panegyric, none of which I have to hand, but none of which are that impressive. Gibbon thinks it doesn't matter:
It is not very important to inquire from what causes the revolt of Britain was produced. Accident is commonly the parent of disorder; the seed of rebellion happened to fall on a soil which was supposed to be more fruitful than any other in tyrants and usurpers;the legions of that sequestered island had been long famous for a spirit of presumption and arrogance; and the name of Maximus was proclaimed by the tumultuary but unanimous voice both of the soldiers and of the provincials (3:143)
Stephen Johnson takes the view that Maximus' elevation was simply a matter of seeking more effective defence against barbarian attack. But there is clearly a strong lobby for the idea of revolt: Michael E Jones, who has written a paper on the failure of Romanisation in Britain, argues in The End of Roman Britain (Cornell, 1996) "The traditional strengths of Roman civilisation, pax and law, also fail to inspire affection in [Patrick, Gildas and Nennius]...the Roman law is remembered with loathing as an instrument of Roman oppression, a burden and a yoke. The Romans themselves are remembered as inconstant defenders but capable plunderers....it was a failure of loyalty." It's hard to judge this. Despite the sources, there were plainly a lot of people leading Roman lives in Roman Britain, though they might have been like the Protestant Ascendancy in Victorian Ireland, I suppose. And Britain actually did less badly in terms of barbarian attacks than the Rhine and Danube provinces, at least until 367.
As I recall, Frere was more of a numismatist than an economist. I don't have his book to hand, but I've looked at AHM Jones' LRE, which is generally authoritative, and the position on inflation, empire-wide, seems to be that gold retained its value from the first issue of the solidus by Constantine, that silver (which wasn't actually that important) fluctuated throughout the fourth and fifth centuries, and that there was continuous inflation in copper - mainly, it seems, because the government issued a great deal of copper coin in stipendium to the troops, but withdrew none from circulation through taxes. The copper inflation problem was not solved until the end of the fifth century.
Yes, I agree about the London mint.
Johnson's 4th-century forts are at Maryport and Ravenglass in Cumberland, Lancaster and Ribchester in Lnacashire, Caernavon and Caer Gybi in North Wales and Cardiff in South Wales; and possibly also Burrow Walls and Moresby in Cumberland and Loughor in South Wales. He also suggests city walls at Chester, Carmarthen, Caerwent and Exeter. He does draw attention to the lack of fit between the archaeological record on this and the list of troop locations in the Notitia Dignitatum, but does not suggest that this casts doubt on the archaeology (myself I can see no reason why some forts should not have been manned by detachments away from base).

Mark O'Sullivan 07:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

[edit]

I need persuading of WikiRat's stuff about Xity. What are his secondary sources? The primary sources he cites are the kind of thing traditionally seen as interpolations by enthusiastic medieval Christians (well, Gildas and his friends may have made it up themselves - Gildas, remember, had so feeble a grasp of history that he thought that Hadrian's Wall was constructed in the fourth century, instead of the second). And there is good other evidence that there weren't a lot of Christians until pagan sacrifice was banned in 398 (eg the character of mosaics in Britain, or the thin British representation at councils and synods). I suggest that this article should be much more cautious about this. Mark O'Sullivan 20:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A separate Religion section would be a good addition rather than swelling the already large sub-Roman Britain bit. Regarding the new additions, I'm pretty sure there's no archaeological evidence of Christian worship pre late third century. See Talk:Caratacus for a summary of WikiRat's reasoning on the subject. adamsan 20:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Gildas is our major source for events in Britain after AD 400; although one should not uncritically read into his silences, what he does describe he is fairly accurate about (for example, he is one of the earliest writers to describe Hadrian's Wall). However he does not mention the apostle -- or anyone named -- Philip in his work. While he does mention the Emperor Tiberius (ch. 8), it is not in a way to conclusively prove that gildas thought Britain had any Christians living there. Further, the earliest Christian Gildas does mention, & to whom can be assigned a date, is St. Alban, who is believed to have died either in the early 3rd century or during the reign of Diocletian.
In short, there is nothing in Gildas to support Wikirat's use of Gildas. I suggest that this section be rewritten to exclude this mention of Gildas (although the epitomizer of Dio Cassius did say Caratacus was a Christian, this may have been wishful thinking on this anonymous writer's part). -- llywrch 23:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, though he deserves marks for referring to it at all, Gildas' reference to Hadrian's Wall, as I implied, is not an example of accuracy. He is indeed our major source for the fifth and early sixth centuries, but that just means that our sources are awful - my own view is that it's fair to rely on Gildas for the period of two or three generations (100 years?) leading up to when he was writing in about 540, but he's not to be relied on earlier than that. And as for the Welsh Triads which WikiRat also cites - well, I can't find my copy, but they're full of fantastic stuff which is good fun as legend but nothing to do with history.
My take on WikiRat's draft is as follows: Traditionally, the view has been that Christianity had come relatively late to Britain, however this view is increasingly being challenged and discarded by scholars. There is evidence that Christianity may have arrived in Britain much earlier than previously thought. He needs to show that any reputable scholars take this view. Gildas Albanicus or Saint Gildas (A.D. 516 – 570) otherwise known as Badonicus, writes in ‘"De excidio Britannae liber querulus"’ on the victory of Aurelius Ambrosius, that Saint Philip commissioned the [Christian] Gospel to go to Britain in the time of the Emperor Tiberius. There is no reference to Philip; there is no reference to Christianity in the passage on Aurelius Ambrosius; Gildas does vaguely imply that Christianity came to Britain in the last years of Tiberius ('rigenti insulae...tempore Tiberii...radios suos indulget Christus' ch 8), but he is unreliable and this is almost certainly myth made up by British Christians to dignify themselves. Evidence this may have happened appears in ancient Roman sources where the Celtic king Caratacus is described as a "barbarian Christian" by Dio Cassius (Epitome of Book LXI, 33:3c [1]). I agree with llywrch that this is unpersuasive. Furthermore, the Welsh Triads state that Bran the Blessed converted to Christianity, which would mean Christianity was in Britain before Caratacus. Bran the Blessed is entirely legendary: the Triads are wholly unreliable on such matters and can be ignored. Regardless, Christianity was well established by the early fifth century. This survives from the previous draft, though frankly even this is somewhat controversial: even by 400 there is not a lot of Christian iconography, and the survival of the church in Wales is to be balanced by the loss of Christianity in the Anglo-Saxon areas where genetic evidence shows substantial Celtic populations remained, especially of women. Maybe Adamsan's solution is the right one.

Mark O'Sullivan 09:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, you & I will have to debate the value another time: while I may not agree with some of what you said, I do agree enough agree with you about removing Gildas from this passage. And there is a bit in your rewrite of this passage that I want to question. Consider this sentence:
Traditionally, the view has been that Christianity had come relatively late to Britain, however this view is increasingly being challenged and discarded by scholars.
By "traditionally", whose views are we talking about? 19th century scholars? Mid-20th century scholars? The work of Hugh Williams, whose Christianity in Early Britain appeared in 1912? Or is it Charles Thomas' Christianity in Roman Britain to AD 500 (published over 20 years ago), which I believe is considered the "mainstream" POV on this issue. And what is meant by "relatively late"? Missionaries were still busy converting people in parts of Gaul & Spain in the 4th & 5th centuries -- & Christianity only came to Ethiopia around 340. Thomas notes that some authorities have interpreted a passage in Tertullian's work to imply that there were Christians in Britain c. AD 200 -- which would imply that Christianity came relatively early to Britain. I'd simply state in the article that it was clear that Christianity was established in Britain by AD 300, but that the earliest known Christian -- Saint Alban -- is sometimes dated as early as c. AD 250. (I believe that a sign on the Cathedral of St Albans claims an even earlier date in the 3rd century for the saint, but I cannot recall it at the moment.)
And I also agree with you & Adamsan on another matter: to do this subject justice -- more than a few paragraphs in this article -- the matter needs its own article. It may also help with Celtic Christianity -- llywrch 21:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Llywrch -
I meant to show by the orthography that the bits I put in italics were quotes from the WikiRat draft: they aren't my own. But I may well have been responsible for the preceding "Christianity had come relatively late to Britain". I think this is clear from the low level of Christian as opposed to pagan iconography found by archaeologists in eg mosaic floors, and also the sparse representation of bishops from Britain (by comparison for example with Gaul) at synods (only three at the Council of Arles in 314, and probably three at Rimini in 359).
Leslie Alcock (Arthur's Britain, 1973) points a contrast between the archaeology which shows almost no Christianity, and the literary evidence, at least of Germanus in the fifth century, which shows no indication of paganism (p 132). Stephen Johnson (Later Roman Britain, 1980) says "Traces of the organised Christianity of the third and fourth centuries are yet to be discovered within the civitates if Britain" (p 47), and he goes on to point out "A number of Romano-Celtic shrines...were rebuilt or built new in the fourth century and...had a rich and devoted following" (p47). Salway (1981) is one of the standard works on Roman Britain, and well informed by recent archaeology, and he says (p717) "...we have first to look at what evidence there is for Christianity in Britain before the end of the third century...there is very little...the archaeology bears this out". He adds "freestanding churches are almost non-existent" (p 724), and goes on "it seems increasingly likely that the Romano-British church hardly existed before Constantine" (p726). Esmond Cleary (The Ending of Roman Britain, 1989) goes over the archaeological evidence exhaustively and concludes that Xity was urban and aristocratic. Michael Jones (End of Roman Britain, 1996) claims that scholarly opinion is divided, and says that your Thomas (which I haven't read) does not resolve the question: he waffles rather, but seems to accept at least that Xity was "a minority religion in fourth-century Roman Britain" (p181). It seems to me from this that the academic consensus is pretty clear.

Mark O'Sullivan 22:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I think we are arguing at cross-purposes. My point wasn't whether Christianity was the religion of most or some of the population by a given date, but when it could be said at which time there were identifiable Christian communities or congregations. To say that these groups emerged "early" or "late" (relatively or otherwise) really doesn't tell us anything; but to say that there is evidence for them by a given date (pick one -- any one from your authorities), does say something. I picked Thomas out of several possible candidates (I happen to have copies of Cleary's & Johnson's books on my shelves as I write this) to wonder over which is considered in the text "traditional" & which is considered "recent development"; the sentence I was criticising had weasel words in it. (To be honest, I'm at least 10 years behind in my reading of the scholarly literature, & I doubt I'll be catching up soon.)
My point about mentioning Tertullian's comment about Christians in Britain, or the date of Saint Albanus' martyrdom wasn't to argue when Christianity came to Britain either: it was to note that libraries are full of books written 40 or 60 years ago that furnish in all sincerity clearly different dates from what the academic consensus is now. How do we respond to the user who has just visited St Albans Cathedral, read the inscription (written in the 19th C, BTW) that gives a precise date for St Albanus' death, & wonders why that precise information is not in Wikipedia? We do our readers a great favor by pointing out that these ideas are older ones, & how the more recent academic thinking compares to it -- & (hopefuly) why.
I suspect that our opinions are much closer on this issue than you may think they are. -- llywrch 00:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Llywrch - helpful, thank you. Perhaps we're agreed that in Britain (i) no-one knows when Christianity first arrived, (ii) there were certainly at least a few Christians by the time of Alban (but that might have been either at the beginning or at the end of the third century), (iii) Christians were in the early and mid fourth century probably not as large a proportion of the population as in the Mediterranean provinces, though some were enthusiastic (enough so, for example, to destroy the temple of Mithras on Hadrian's Wall), and (iv) they were dominant by the fifth century (Welsh and Cornish tradition, the story of Germanus, and Gildas have little interest in paganism). I have edited the text with this in mind. Mark O'Sullivan 07:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But there is evidence archaeological evidence of Christian worship pre third and fourth century contrary to your claim. In fact, the fastest growing body of evidence for my claim is archaeological. Feel free to direct your attention to Tomlin, R. S. O. ‘Vinisius to Nigra: Evidence from Oxford of Christianity in Roman Britain.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100 (1994), pg. 93-108 which outlines a letter on lead, found in Bath, deciphered, translated and annotated by E. W. B. Nicholson. In this letter Vinisius (a Christian) is writing to Christian lady named Nigra, living in Bath about the arrival of Bilonicus, whom he calls a "canem Arii", that is, a follower of the heretic Arios. Remember that Arios died about C.E. 336. In other words he was complaining of threats to his faith (sounds like many modern Christians).

Strictly speaking, this only proves that there were at least two Christians in Britain before C.E. 336, but it strongly implies (if Christians are writing each other, and complaining about heresies that there were Christian communities. For other evidence of Christian communities in sub-Roman Britain note that physical evidence exists that proves how wide spread Christianity had become. It seems to have been common in Ireland by C.E. 418. Check out the established fifth century Christian community in the most unlikely spots - Lundy Island (hardly a place in you'd expect a Christian community to be flourishing early in the fifth century on out of the way islands). Furthermore look at the remarkable stone evidence found 1905 that gave rise to our knowledge about the Christianization of this place (inscribed standing stones)? Look for Gardner, Keith S. - 'Lundy, An Archaeological Field Guide (Landmark Trust)' or Charles Thomas’ ‘And Shall These Mute Stones Speak?’,University of Wales, ISBN 0-7083-1160-1.

There is increasing evidence in looking at changing British Burial practices pre-third century, that Christianity was having an effect on belief. This evidence reasonably would be an earlier indicator of change in belief, before the secular cultural record would (which I assume you spend the bulk of your time looking at). To look at ancient British burial practices, check out the ancient sub-Roman cemeteries that have been recently excavated in Brean Down, Ancaster, Poundbury, Shepton Mallet, and Cannington. All of these sites show the changing burial practices among the Britons and signal the increasingly wide-spread conversion of these communities to Christianity. Furthermore, they indicated that Christianity was more common in a popular sense, than this article indicates.

You can’t claim that no archaeological evidence exists to support my edit for that depends entirely upon how narrowly you look at the archaeological record. In looking for archaeological evidence of early Christian worship in Britain, you must look beyond coins and crosses. I suppose if you don't believe Christianity came to Britain before Rome you won't bother looking for evidence, and if you happen across such evidence, would tend to discard it outright despite its implication.

I agree with Diocletian that we should not uncritically accept all that Gildas wrote, however though he should not be read uncritically, we cannot simply ignore those sources we do not like or think highly of. If my edit were entirely based upon what Gildas wrote, you would be quite right to remove it, however the evidence is far greater than that, so lets re-examine Gildas’ claim. The only native sources of information about the sub-Roman Britain accounts of these centuries come from Gildas and Patrick, and so we could throw out everything that Gildas says as Mark O'Sullivan suggest, but then we damn ourselves to knowing nothing about the period at all. Gildas does state that Christianity came to Britain in the last years of Tiberius ('rigenti insulae...tempore Tiberii...radios suos indulget Christus' ch 8), you can disbelieve his claim if you wish despite the evidence to the contrary.

Yes of course, there is a small camp of scholars who say 'was it really Gildas who wrote that' or 'can we believe Gildas', however is Gildas is unreliable because of this assertion? If you happen to believe that Christianity came to Britain much later, than yes. If however Christianity came to Britain the same time it came to Rome, than that statement is not unreliable. Regardless, neither Gildas nor Patrick were ‘trying’ to write histories, however that does not invalidate our use of their work.

Regarding adamsan's comment to check out a summary of my reasoning about these issues see the Talk:Caratacus page. I quite agree, you should check out my reasoning there, so you can see how much of a nut I am (for not accepting perfectly acceptable orthodox scholarship). Saving you the effort, I’ll admit up front that;

  1. I do believe - against the convention - that Christianity came to Britain earlier than most traditional scholars, because I believe that’s what the evidence suggests.
  2. I also believe that because this idea is unpopular, traditional academics tend to ‘gloss’ over this evidence, categorize it as unreliable, or marginalize it. However the body of evidence that suggest this to be true is growing, and there is a body of young scholars working on questioning the orthodox views. There are just too many Roman and Celtic references to an established early British Christian Church for it to be a series of mistakes, or early British Christians making something out of nothing, or modern scholars blindingly accepting fringe beliefs (all of which you'll see in the counter arguments that have been presented to me). Humbug.
  3. Further, though I am happy being asked to provide evidence for the edits I make, because I am able to provide evidence, I find it funny because the counter-argument struggles to explain things like;
    1. The existence of sub-Roman (and in some cases pre-Roman) Christian communities (Carlisel, Worcester, St. Albans, Cirencester, Shepton Mallet and Wells, and work has uncovered evidence that a pre-Roman Christian community may have existed in Richborough.
    2. The existence of sub-Roman and pre-Roman churches (Vindolanda and South Shields), sub-Roman basilicas (Richborough, Canterbury (St. Pancras), Silchester, Colchester and Icklingham)
    3. References to early British Christian Church customary diocesan systems as evidenced from the records of the Council of Arles in Gaul, 314.6 C.E. Signatories include three bishops from Britain. These were Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelphius, so the early Church did exist – there is no doubt.
    4. The existance of First and Second Century Pre-Roman "tunic crosses" from Cornwall (or Wales)

20th Century scholars have been the ones to formulate the counter argument that Rome brought with it Christianity, however 20th Century scholars also show a shocking lack of familiarity with ancient texts, the material record, and almost a complete reliance on secondary or tertiary sources. (How can you write about history, when you restrict your research almost completely, to the views of others who themselves are writing about history? Someone at sometime has to be looking at the evidence first hand.)

Other considerations when looking at this are;

  1. For non-literary sources there is evidence such as the existence of Cornish, Welsh, and Kentish churches that were hundreds of years old in the 500 – 600 C.E. Few of which now stand, but whose existence is documented. At least one pre-Augustine church still stands, “Saint Martins”
  2. Early Latin references (Dio Cassius, Martial, early Roman Saints etc) to Christian Britain suggest that Britain was exposed to Christianity at least as early as Rome, and the same references compliment what ever sources were used to compile the Mabinogion which clearly draws a like between some early Celtic kings and Christianity.
  3. Familiarity with these ancient references seem to help explain why many 19th Century scholars (Williams, J., Conybeare, W.) or earlier (James Ussher) believed this to be true un-reservedly. It also helps explains the existence of a “Celtic Catholic Church” until it was outlawed in the Synod of Whitby in 664 A.D. and it explains Roman references to British Christianity.
  4. There is other less weighty but equally suggestive evidence that supports this view. The Roman Catholic Church has been challenged a number of times in history as to the seniority of 'national' Catholic churches (by France, Italy, and Spain) and claimed all three times that the senior Roman Catholic Church is not the Church of France, Spain or Italy, but the Ecclesia Anglicana or English Church. This issues was raised and decided upon in the Council of Pisa (1409), Constance (1417), Sienna (1424), and Basle (1434) where it was declared that The churches of France and Spain, must yield in point of antiquity and precedence to that of Britain, as the latter Church was founded by Joseph of Arimathea immediately after the Passion of Christ.. This was last challenged (by Spain I believe) in 1927, and upheld by Pope Pius XI. (The Church has increasingly refused to recognize 'national churches' after the reformation) Unfortunately, no Pope has explained why this ordering has been upheld, but it has. I would personally love to know what is in the Vatican library that supports this claim by the Popes.

Many modern secondary sources looking Christianity’s ingress into the British Isles seem to adopt the rather boring and somewhat plebian ‘party line’ that blames the Romans for Christianity being in Britain in the first place. This may or may not be true, but certainly looking at primary sources, one can see why many have made this argument (Christianity was certainly making ingress into the Roman Empire at the same time – why not?)

I agree that;

  1. no-one knows exactly when Christianity first arrived but I think it likely that it was early (in light of Dio Cassius' claim and other evidence)
  2. there were certainly communities of Christians by the time of Alban however I think the evidence points to it being greater than is what is being articluated in this article
  3. they were dominant by perhaps the fourth century

I do not agree that;

  1. Christians were in the early and mid fourth century probably not as large a proportion of the population as in the Mediterranean provinces, though some were enthusiastic, as I don't think there is evidence this is true in fact the opposite is suggested. I think in Anglo Saxon Britain this may have been true, but likely not in Celtic Western, and Northern Britain or Ireland.

Put this business in its own article? I don't mind either way, but it should be at least referenced in this one, because Rome's part in Britain did influence latter British belief, and as you know, there is a body of scholars that refuse to abandon the idea that the only relationship between Christianity and Britain is Rome.

-- WikiRat 23:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I moved Wikirat's signature to the bottom of his post here -- in it's original location I could not follow the discussion: I was unsure whether one or more editors added the paragraphs above. -- llywrch 19:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
I am not familiar with the historical sources but the archaeological ones sound wrong to me. St Martins church in Canterbury is 5th century with re-used Roman brick, suggesting that the material was recycled from a derelict Roman building. I think you may have been misled regarding Richborough being a pre-Roman Christian site, there was an early medieval ecclesiastical set-up there though. I can reproduce the Kent SMR listing for the both sites here when I get to work tomorrow. adamsan 19:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my point is that attacking a single argument does not invalidate the whole argument, as the evidence is beyond simply one or two antiquated references. Another aspect that I tried to argue is that it has been pretty much until the Reformation that the role of the early Celtic Christians was recognized, and that after the reformation this started to change. Feel free to check out my revisions to Celtic Christianity where I have flushed out the literary evidence more thoroughly - mostly provided by Latin references. -- WikiRat 19:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But those were the two places you listed as being pre-Roman Christian sites! In archaeology I'm not attacking a single argument but a highly significant area of study for the period. All the other sites you mention are late Roman Christian sites. So, from an archaeological point of view, we have no evidence to suggest pre-late third century Christianity in Britain. Feel free to read what you like into the historical sources but please don't dismiss the vast body of archaeological evidence that supports there being only pagan beliefs in early Roman Britain as "one or two antiquated references". Archaeology is hugely important in studying everyday life in Roman Britain and it does not hold a suggestion of Christianity during the first three centuries AD. adamsan 20:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to re-read that - the reference to St Martins shows that churches existed before Saint Augustine, which he referenced himself in his letters to Pope Gregory I (Epistolae ad Gregorium Papam). If the contention is that Christianity was common before Saint Augustine, and Saint Augustine himself references the existance of Churches than the question remains, how early was Christianity in Britain. Again, I recommend you check out Celtic_Christianity to see more on that question.

I'm working on sourcing this page, and I've done up to Agricola's recall - not so sure of the sources after that - but I had to have a go at the Religion section to give it a little coherence. I've added the dates when Christianity was tolerated and became the official state religion to give a bit of historical context, because a lack of that framework is severely confusing matters. The reference to Augustine above is particularly odd. Augustine came to convert the English: nobody's ever argued that he was the first to bring Christianity to Britain. --Nicknack009 22:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A definition of Roman Britain

[edit]

There seems to be some debate over the extent of Roman influence in Britain and I thought we could discuss it here. I find the current claim that only the southern two thirds of the island were under Roman control to be at best simplistic.

The historically attested physical Roman presence as far north as Moray at its greatest extent suggests that more than two thirds of the island was under their control for some of the occupation. Of course the Orcadians went so far as to send supplicants all the way down to Kent to surrender to Claudius in 43BC and as the article states the northern tribes were under de jure if not de facto submission for a considerable period.

This article attempts to cover Roman Britain and the existing introduction implies that northern Britain was entirely independent for the entire Roman period. We may argue that the far north (one sixth?) of the island never saw Roman occupation but even there the evidence of trade and cultural contacts suggests a strong degree of Romanisation. As a result, I find the existing definition to be incorrect and based on a misunderstanding of the period. adamsan 19:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, why did you write the following, slightly bizarre, Edit summary: "Roman Britain != Britannia. Correcting implication that Scotland was not Romanised - all the tribes in Britain surrendered to Rome eventually". Mmmm... not true.--Mais oui! 20:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Caledonians surrendered, we have records that the Orcadians surrendered. as for the broch building people in between, the evidence is that they were not tribes at all. To quote Frere:
"The social and and geographical organisation of the broch-builders was such as to compel individual rather than group protection" (Britannia, p 41) and: "[They] may well have been friendly to Rome because of hostility to the Caledonian hill-fort builders and, if so, presented no serious military problem (ibid, p 94). My understanding, and I admit my knowledge of the far north of Scotland is limited and derived only from the archaeological record, is that the Picts of the period were individual family groups scratching out a living rather than a political unit or units capable of negotiation or resistance. adamsan 20:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is a classic example of POV (and extraordinarily pro-Roman). Please allow readers to draw their own conclusions from reliable sources. Do not draw their conclusions for them.--Mais oui! 20:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion. I would welcome references that demonstrate a greater degree of Pictish social organisation. Frere is not an unreliable source though. adamsan 20:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Legacy

The article asserts that Britain is the largest part of Europe which the Romans ruled in which neither a Latin-based language nor the speech of a pre-Roman population survived. That needs two qualifications: first, that some Celtic speech existed in England long after the Anglo-Saxon conquest that transformned the Celtic-Roman Britain into the Germanic England. Ignoring Wales, there was Cumberland, where Celtic speech lingered into the middle ages, and there is Cornwall, where a Celtic language became effectively extinct only in early-modern times. How long Celtic speech lingered in counties bordering Wales is a matter of conjecture. If Welsh is heavily laden with words of Latin origin, then so is English.

Also, there perhaps may be confusion between the ancient and modern use of the word "Britain" In modern times the phrase is used, perhaps erroneously, to cover the entire United Kingdom. If this is assumed to be correct, then Scotland certainly still speaks a language descended from the pre-Roman inhabitants, namely Scottish Gaelic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.141.81 (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second, another region in Europe clearly fits that description as a place where neither a pre-Roman speech not a Romance language survived: the arc of lands including the entier Rhine and Danube valleys (except for Romania and - questionably Alsace-Lorraine) where Germanic and Slavonic languages (Dutch, German, Slovene, Serbo-Croatian, Makedonian, and Bulgarian) and Hungarian prevail. If one looks at the parts of the former Yugoslavia that were under Roman rule, that is a territory rivaling England in size; if one adds Bulgaria to the same parts of the former Yugoslavia, one has a region decidedly larger than Roman Britain.--66.231.41.57 04:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Romanians descend from tribes in the southern parts of the Balkans and started to move into the territory of the former Roman province called Dacia in the early Middle Ages. So there's no continuity there. 82.33.107.222 (talk)[reply]

Terminology

I would be very careful using the term "Romanisation" as it applies to Britain (or any province really) as they are unstable terms within the scholarly world, and thus, very much debated and under constant review and possibly subject to radical reinterpretation (as the idea has already undergone in the last 70 years). For references see e.g. Woolf "Beyond Romans and Natives" or Webster's article on "Creolization" either of which can be searched for in JSTOR.

Other terms I would be very careful about are "Borders" and "Frontiers", especially when talking about the Hadrian or Antonine "walls". Romans didn't even have a word for those things ('Fines' and 'Limes' are not direct equivalents for our concepts of the "Frontier"). Again, definitions here are undergoing change in the scholarly sphere as thinking about them gains sophistication. For example see Whittaker's 2005 book on the Roman Frontier.

GermanicusCaesar (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between Caesar's invasion and the conquest

[edit]

According to the Wikipedia article Roman conquest of Britain, Octavian (Augustus) threatened to invade Britain, but called off his invasions when the Britons "came to terms". The same article states "According to Augustus's Res Gestae, two British kings, Dumnovellaunus and Tincomarus, sent supplications to Rome during his reign, and Strabo's Geography, written during this period, says that Britain paid more in customs and duties than could be raised by taxation if the island were conquered."

This has the ring of truth, and it is at odds with this article's statement that after Julius Caesar's invasion, "The British tribes were not to hear from Rome again until Claudius's permenant invasion and occupation centuries later." Also, the timespan between Caesar's invasion (54 B.C.) and the conquest (47 A.D.) is just 101 years. Consequently, I have just changed this to read "The British tribes remained independent of Rome until Claudius' permanent conquest and occupation a century later." Marco polo 02:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare

[edit]

Compare the size of Roman Greece to Roman Britain articles. How ridiculous, did Britain contribute anything to the Empire? Not really. Yet Greece was the basis of what is referred to as Classical Roman Culture.

But the Empire contributed quite a lot to Britain. If you're interested in and knowledgeable about Roman Greece, then share your knowledge and expand the article. --Nicknack009 19:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Roman Britain is quite a distinct and very significant area of the discipline of classical history. Second, Roman Britain was both a rich source of commodities for Rome, and also quite a burden on Rome's military manpower. -- GermanicusCaesar (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree

a)is not important the size of the article, but the quality

b)even the walls know that the Roman province of Britannia was not exactly the most important province of the empire,but the Roman presence in Britain should not be underestimated ,for a lot of reasons: it is part of your history,it is part of what you are today (did you know approximately 20 25% of English words come directly from the Latin?,do you think that words like castle (from castrum) fortification (from fortificatio) and other 1000 and 1000 words come from the Japanese?) and at the end If is not the English Wikipedia to underline the Roman presence in Britain who has to do it? Portuguese Wikipedia maybe? --Altro21 (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Britons "descended from the Belgae"

[edit]

I've removed the sentence "Julius Caesar describes the Britons as being descended from the Belgae, a Germanic people ([De Bello Gallico]] v.xii and ii.iv)" from the "Sub-Roman Britain" section partly because it doesn't belong there, and partly because it's plain wrong. Caesar does not say the Britons were descended from the Belgae. He said in relatively recent times there had been some Belgic settlement in Britain. It's also wrong to say the Belgae were unequivocally "Germanic". "Germanic" is a linguistic classification, and all the evidence shows the language of the Belgae in Gaul and Britain was Celtic. --Nicknack009 08:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't mind you taking it out. But if you read the parts I referenced in Caesar, you'll see that he actually does say that the inhabitants are Belgae. Notice that he tells us that who he supposes the aboriginals to be live further inland. So, he tells us there are Belgae and aboriginals, and the Belgae inhabit the South and coastal areas. The Belgae he says come from Germany originally. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the inhabitants of England spoke a Celtic tongue. Please look for such a reference in classical literature or in epigraphy. You won't find one, because there isn't one. That the ancient Britons spoke Celtic in what is now England is just a nice story, that's all.Kozushi 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"That the ancient Britons spoke a Celtic tongue" is the established consensus of historical linguists. Stop trolling.

--Nicknack009 07:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)40 Debbie Pearl 1 (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)It' interesting that modern Welsh is very close to Hebrew, different only in the pronounciation of some words.[reply]

Hebrew is Semitic - there is no relation between it and "modern Welsh" or any other Celtic language.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vinisius, Nigra, and Bilonicus never existed

[edit]

The following fact should be removed as it appears to be based upon an error made by the scholar who first attempted to translate this tablet: "A letter found in Bath, datable to ca. 363, written in Wroxeter by a Christian man called Vinisius, warns a Christian women called Nigra of the arrival of Bilonicus, describing him as a canem Arii, an 'Arian dog', indicating that the struggle between orthodoxy and heresy was present in Britain as elsewhere in the empire."

The footnote provided following this item in the article leads to a paper that says the entire story about Vinisius, Nigra, and Bilonicus was a mistake perpetuated by an over zealous scholar who attempted to read the tablet upsidedown. Tomlin, R. S. O. (1994). "Vinisius to Nigra: Evidence from Oxford of Christianity in Roman Britain" (PDF). Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100: 93-108. Retrieved on December 13, 2006. Here is a link to the document above: http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/1994/100pdf/100093.pdf

--Jjhake (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britannia vs. Roman Britain

[edit]

Since the name of this province of Rome was Britannia, shouldn't "Britannia" redirect here?? The personification should have an article as Britannia (goddess) IMO. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britannia can also refer to post-Roman Britain as well. Where would the information on its use after Roman Britain go?--Goon Noot (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(my own irrelevant comment removed) GermanicusCaesar (talk)

Translation of Noviomagus?

[edit]

The translation of Noviomagus as 'New Market' by an editor of this page is currently inconsistent with the translation 'new field' on the Noviomagus_Reg page itself and also with the article on the meaning of word magus (in brief: astrologer; astronomer; magician (derog.); trickster).
I have placed -fact- tags on both editors offerings, for the time being.
The fact that Nijmegen is Dutch for 'new market' (if so) is not disputed (by me) at this point but it's as if it is being offered to support a theory which isn't strong enough in its own right (whilst lacking a citation) and, other than in that role, it is not relevant to the main article and should be removed.
As an additional complication, at the moment there is a redirect from Noviomagus Regnorum to Noviomagus Reginorum but I will restrict all discussion about that to the Talk:Noviomagus_Reginorum page. EatYerGreens (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SORTED - thanks Doug (for fixing both pages) EatYerGreens (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, slight panic as I thought I might have given Wacher away, but I found it! Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i m sorry for my english , i ll try to explain from where come from Noviomagus. NOVUS or NOVI (NEW) ACTUS ( this word com from verb AGO and it has a plurality of meanings ,ie here it means trade,exchange, or exchanges,trades).. Novus/Novi Actus ,Noviomagus it could be a successive transformation or a misspelling/mispronunciation . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Without23 (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental changes

[edit]

I've corrected this section and provided some decent sources ('snails' and 'nettles' was simply wrong, as they were in Britain before the Romans, it was only specific species that they introduced). But this still needs enlarging, eg Roman engineering made changes, farming made changes, etc. Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving this section and removing the errors. I agree it needs enlarging. By engineering do you mean roads, bridges, aqueducts and towns? Obviously there is a point when this moves from environment to economics etc. I will see if I can find anything useful.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, including the road network, woodland clearances [1] etc. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For information on Roman changes to the British environment, try Volume 1, Part 2 of The Agrarian History of England and Wales, edited H.P.R. Finberg & published by Cambridge Press. If my memory serves me right -- it's been about 20 years since I read it -- Finberg provides a list of trees & vegetables that the Romans introduced during their rule. Another source would be W.G. Hoskin's The Making of the English Landscape; his Midland Peasant focusses more on the medieval period. -- llywrch (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Senator

[edit]

In the article it says "former senator" in the provincial gov. section. In ancient Rome becoming a senator was for life unless kicked out, and that would probably not be the kind of man governing the province of Britain... I would suggest checking on what a governor's past credentials would be. K2mac (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that is an odd comment -- although the rest of the statement is correct. I have amended the passage accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebius

[edit]

But to preach to all the Name of Jesus, to teach about His marvellous deeds in country and town, that some of them should take possession of the Roman Empire, and the Queen of Cities itself, and others the Persian, others the Armenian, that others should go to the Parthian race, and yet others to the Scythian, that some already should have reached the very ends of the world, should have reached the land of the Indians, and some have crossed the Ocean and reached the Isles of Britain, all this I for my part will not admit to be the work of mere men, far less of poor and ignorant men, certainly not of deceivers and wizards. Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica (before 311 AD), Book 3, Chapter 5 AJRG (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gildas

[edit]

Meanwhile these islands, stiff with cold and frost, and in a distant region of the world, remote from the visible sun, received the beams of light, that is, the holy precepts of Christ, the true Sun, showing to the whole world his splendour, not only from the temporal firmament, but from the height of heaven, which surpasses every thing temporal, at the latter part, as we know, of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, by whom his religion was propagated without impediment, and death threatened to those who interfered with Its professors. Gildas (c.504-570) De Excidio Britanniae, Chapter 8 AJRG (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and how do you intend the above quotes to be of use to the article? Nev1 (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They both refer to the arrival of Christianity in Britain. The Eusebius quote can happily be referenced, and a following passage refers to the Domitian persecutions if that is required. This Gildas quote is a bit startling, dating the arrival before 37AD. Written five hundred years after the event, it perhaps counts as myth. Might be worth a mention, nonetheless. AJRG (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Our Time

[edit]

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Roman Britain|p00548xn}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I need help, I deleted some stuff by accident. How do I change it back? -Eladynnus

Done. Moonraker (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of British Isles History infobox

[edit]

Could you please explain the reasons for removal rather than simply removing it? It was unclear from the edit summary.--SabreBD (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not see an improvement to tyhe article?MacStep (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I can't. Perhaps you could offer an explanation. It is usually considered incumbent on the editor making the change to something long standing under WP:BRD.--SabreBD (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date Format

[edit]

I'd like to suggest that it makes little sense to place "AD" after the date. "AD" means Anno Domini, "In the year of our Lord." If we're going to use "B.C." and "AD," then respect what the term means. To say, "2011 in the year of our Lord" makes no sense; it does make sense to reverse it. The fact that it happens frequently doesn't really change the fact that it doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinFox (talk • contribs) 02:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem so to you but to me and I suspect to many other readers 2000 AD seems more natural. This may because I gave up Latin at age 16 but kept on doing maths and science, so it looks more like a scientific or other unit to me than an abbreviation. There's also the matter of consistency with BC, which short for "before Christ" needs to go after the number. Probably more readers know that than "Anno Domini" again as it requires no knowledge of Latin.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is WP:ERA. Which states that "AD may appear before or after a year". I would suggest since a precedent is already established it should be left as it is.--SabreBD (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to John, I would say, isn't Wikipedia supposed to be scholarly?MartinFox (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to SabreBD, I would say, if AD can go before, or after, than why was I deemed wrong to make it consistent? (In one article I put them all before.) Also can the WP:ERA not be questioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinFox (talk • contribs) 00:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you can discuss and propose changes to policies on their talk pages, so in this case Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. But I would caution that the policy is unlikely to be changed: I have not been part of previous discussions but it is clear from the policy at WP:ERA that it is the result of quite a lot of work and discussion by editors considering all aspects of it. There would need to be very good reason for it to be changed.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]

I chose to change the language from "the region" to "the former Roman province," as A Scotland was never really under Roman rule and B Scots Gaelic is also a living minority language similar to Welsh. The fact that the name of the former Roman province eventually became the name of the geographic island does admittedly invite confusion. Chris-Gilmore77 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caligula gathering seashells?

[edit]

In the lead is this sentence: "In 40 AD, Caligula assembled 200,000 men at the Channel, only to have them gather seashells." Is this literally true, or just a metaphor for doing nothing? Either way, it should be mentioned and explained in the rest of the article. It was added in a February 2015 edit by LlywelynII. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a metaphor, but the Cambridge Ancient History suggests this anecdote from Suetonius (if he can be believed) may have represented Caligula's symbolic victory over the sea. I have clarified and added a reference. BabelStone (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert

[edit]

My edit describing the area of Roman Britain has been reverted, but I think it was correct. My version was "It comprised almost all of England and Wales and, for a short period, southern Scotland." Laurel Lodged changed it to "It comprised all of England, the majority of Wales and, for a short period, the southern half of Scotland." Every part of this is wrong. All of England was not under Roman rule (except during the short period of the Antonine Wall) as Hadrian's Wall runs wholly through England, and it is 68 miles south of the border at the eastern end. According to maps of Roman Britain and History of Wales, the whole of Wales was part of Roman Britain. It is also not correct that the southern half of Scotland was under Roman rule as the area between the Scottish border and the Antonine Wall is much less than half the area never ruled by Rome. I will revert unless someone shows I am wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was correct. I will restore it.—Cúchullain t/c}

Name change

[edit]

Requested move 12 July 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy moved per WP:BRD. Anyone who wishes to move the page away from the long-term status quo may start a new RM. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Province of Britain → Roman Britain – The name has been changed without discussion. Such a major change should not be made without consensus, and I strongly disagree with it. The new name will mean nothing to the great majority of readers. Books on the province are almost always titled with some variation on "Roman Britian" and we should follow commono usage. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arthur

[edit]

Florian Blaschke reverted my deletion of text and image relating to King Arthur and changed the text to

Scholars generally reject the historicity of the later legends of King Arthur, which seem to be set in this period. It is sometimes popularly known as the "Age of Arthur" after this figure.[1]

I do not think this is satisfactory. The statement that the historicity of Arthur is rejected is unreferenced, and Morris is not a reliable source. I suggest

Historians generally reject the historicity of King Arthur, who is supposed to have resisted the Anglo-Saxon conquest according to later medieval legends.[2]

The image of Arthur should be deleted.

  1. ^ John Morris, The Age of Arthur (1973) is his title for a popular history of the British Isles from 350 to 650.
  2. ^ Higham, Nicholas J. (2018). King Arthur: The Making of the Legend. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-21092-7.

Dudley Miles (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a no-brainer. Of course we can't use Morris. And the image doesn't belong. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting one to navigate. Obviously we're striving to the best standards, but given our audience is a general one some acknowledgement of Arthur is worth including as people may be coming to this article with him in mind. I wouldn't want to spend too long on the topic, just a couple of sentences, so I do think that having an image of Arthur (added in 2014) gives it more emphasis than I think is necessary especially as the caption isn't as carefully worded as the text in the main body of the article. I'm largely happy with Dudley Miles' suggested wording, but it feels like it doesn't quite flow with the existing text. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As there was some broad agreement here, I've subbed in Dudley's wording and removed the image. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "legend of King Arthur" holds a prominent place in British cultural history and has provided the source for much art, music and literature over the centuries. Given the space devoted to Wikipedia articles on (say) Taylor Swift, it is surely a legitimate topic to consider, not least in terms of its likely (albeit probably fictional) origin in early post-Roman Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Occupation" - during 367 years ?

[edit]

I just wonder if there is any evidence of a public feeling of being occupied like in 275 AD. Also - Great Britain never returned to be what it was before the occupation. It was an occupation to begin with. But after a couple of generations, very few (if any) knew how it had been 150 years earlier. 83.250.73.248 (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britannia

[edit]

Should this not be called Britannia? For the province to be referred to in English then the capitals to be referred to in Latin is rather inconsistent. Faren29 (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't involved in the discussions about the title, so what I have to say if my own guesswork.
Roman Britain is a broad term which encompasses the initial province of Britannia and its later divisions and reorganisations (including Britannia Inferior, Britannia Superior, and Britannia Prima). The approach used by the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies was to call their journal Britannia and you can see from their contents it covers all of Roman Britain, so maybe it's not much of an issue, but most publications use Roman Britain in their title rather than Britannia (even within the journal of the same name).
There is also the issue to consider of whether readers will be looking for something titled Roman Britain or Britannia. A Google search for Britannia understandably produces a lot more things that aren't about Roman Britain than a search for Roman Britain. English Heritage and the BBC Bitesize website both refer to Roman Britain rather than Britannia, so it looks to be very common. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article Britannia about the usage as personification of Britain. This is the primary usage. The great majority of books and articles about the subject have the title Roman Britain and we should follow common usge. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "Roman Britain" is a historical topic, similar to, for example, Prehistoric Ireland, not the name of a country. Insisting the title of the article must be the contemporary name of the country is applying the standard of modern nation-states to a time when that standard did not apply. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current spoken language.

[edit]

This wording implies it is immenient that English no longer remains the official language of Britian. A strange sentence and out of character with the rest of the page. 82.132.187.200 (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Britain&oldid=1259649352"