h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Romans in Britain: A Brief History - A2137565
Author: Elentari - U202814

This is one of a series of entries I'm doing on Roman Britain, which in the long run, I hope to have edited as a series like Atlantic Cable's Sci fi entries (A1132057).

The complete list of my series is:
A Brief history: A2137565
Minerals: A3008666
Pottery: A3012283
Trade and Travel: A3012337
Agriculture: A3012355
Art: A3012364
Towns and Villas: A3012409
Army: A3012481
Forts and Fortresses: A3012517

in case you facy looking at the rest!

I know they may be a bit dry in parts, though I've tried to get rid of the bits that are only of interest to scholars, to make them more readable.

Let me know what you think!

Hi Elentari

I've just gotten into this, so I haven't gotten very far, but the first thing that jumped right out at me was the dates. You say Caesar first came to Britain in 55 AD, then returned in 54 AD... this doesn't seem right. Years BC count down, but years AD cout up; so if his first time in Britain was in 55, any subsequent trips would have to have been in years numbered higher than 55

Off to read the rest!

Some technical bits:

--At it’s height >> At its height
--Header titles should be capitalised: The Expeditions of Caesar, The Invasion, Consolidation of the Conquest, etc.
--Footnote 3 is between two full stops.
--for many ears >> for many years
--south – east >> southeast
--1st century >> first century (also, this might need to be capitalised, I'm sure someone will be along to tell us soon )
--major roman towns >> major Roman towns
--footnote 5 should be before the full stop.
--need full stop after footnote 6.
--“barbarian” >> 'barbarian'
--along it’s length >> along its length
--Your date format is inconsistent, sometimes it's (year) AD, others it's AD (year). I believe the year should always come first.

This is very concise and informative. I'm looking forward to exploring the rest of the series

Working my way along these - surely Julius Caeser was BC. - and I'm not so keen on this one, I think its too concise, however possibly when I've read them all I'll feel differently.

One typo I noticed - "Their leader, Caratacus, survived and led revolts against the Romans for many ears but was eventually defeated."

What did he do with all the ears afterwards ?

"surely Julius Caeser was BC"
This would make a lot more sense, but means dates will need to be changed throughout the series.

Hi Elentari - nice subject for an entry, but there needs to be a bit more work - the facts are out there, and easy enough to find. I'm apologising in advance for sounding picky, but...

"Britain experienced almost four hundred years under the control of the Roman Empire. It grew from a violent, Celtic nation full of tribes who were constantly at war with each other to a peaceful Roman province, populated by Romans, Romanised Britons and citizens (and non-citizens) of the Empire from many different countries. At it’s height, the Roman Empire encompassed hundreds of thousands of square miles and millions of people. Britain was only a small part of this, but the Roman period was one of the most influential in the history of Britain."

There isn't a great deal of information about the Brits before the Romans landed, just three or four sources. Yes, they were a warrior nation, but describing them as a "violent, Celtic nation full of tribes who were constantly at war with each" is a bit racy considering that every nation throughout Europe and beyond could be descibed as a warrior nation. If you want violent tribes constantly at war with each other, you may as well start with the Greeks.
Also, Britain was never a "a peaceful Roman province" - it was more like Iraq today, but with greater open revolt in some areas.

"the Roman period was one of the most influential in the history of Britain."

One of the most influential *recorded* periods maybe. There had been plenty of social change before the Romans arrived. Speaking of which...

"Julius Caesar was the first Roman to come in force to Britain. In the late summer of AD 55, while he was Governor of Gaul (modern-day France), he led an exploratory expedition with two legions1 and an unspecified number of auxiliary troops2. The Britons had assembled to meet them and the two sides joined battle on the beach. The Romans were victorious and the Britons asked for peace."

The date was actually the 25th of August 55 BC, at around nine in the morning (I kid you not). This isn't nit-picking, I just thought you might be interested. The reason for the smallness of Caesar's expeditionary force was due to the size of the army he had to leave in Gaul to deal with the constant rebellions there. It should be realised that Caeser naming himself 'Govenor of Gaul' meant little or nothing to the Gauls. The "Pax Romana" was about as solid and durable as the current "Pax Americana". Many of the Gallic tribes had not formally submitted to Rome. Trouble abounded, and about the last thing Caesar brought with him was peace.
The fleet he arrived in had previously been used to destroy the Veniti - a sea-going nation whose tribal area extended along the coasts of Britanny. In a sea battle the Romans destroyed the Veniti fleet and then went on the rampage, burning their townships to the ground and murdering the inhabitants. Please do not mention the word 'peace' and 'Roman' in the same sentence!
The British were also aware that Caesar was on his way - they had been supplying troops to Gaul to fight against him as soon as he proved a real threat.

"The Britons had assembled to meet them and the two sides joined battle on the beach. The Romans were victorious and the Britons asked for peace."

Kind of...You have to keep in mind that this account was written by Caesar himself (he always refered to himself in third person - sounded less like bragging). Caesar is quite unreliable on some matters, especially on the flora and fauna of countries he'd never set foot in. He related, in his 'Conquest of Gaul' the fact that in certain German forests there lived a type of deer the had no knee joints and had to sleep against trees. He also stated with authority that Britain was lacking in two species of tree (this is from memory, I can't remember which but will look it up) which are common in Britain now, and were common in britain then. This is a man who clearly can't spot when a native is taking the piss - his word shouldn't be entirely trusted.
You can also tell when he's going to win a hard faught battle, because he always 'bigs up' the enemy, increasing his own stature when he evetually wins.
What he describes in 'conquests', when you read between the lines, is an account of Caesar getting a foot in the door before having it slammed in his face. He describes a very brief landing, a half arsed retreat to a hastily constructed fort followed by a swift return to Gaul for the winter. He just describes it as his own choice, that's all.
The British were quite technologically advanced, too. Pliny, who visited in the first century B.C, not only comes to the conclusion that the Celtic plough was superior to the Roman design, but also goes on to describe the farmers using 'A big box, the edges armed with teeth and supported by two wheels, moved through the cornfield pushed by an ox; the ears of corn were uprooted by the teeth and fell into the box'
He's describing a combined harvester.

This might all sound like nit-picking, and to be sure, you've only given yourself a short space into which you're trying to fit an extraordinary amount of information, but I have to say, it's sounding a lot like the old 'For thousands of years people were brutal and stupid and then the Romans came along.'
The Romans were quite capable of being pretty brutal and stupid when it comes down to it. They just managed it in a more organised fashion, with embedded reporters.
Good luck with the articles, but please do some reaserch into what the Romans were destroying - these guys were nobodies saviours.

Hi ointmede, and welcome!
Thanks from all of us here, I'm sure, for engaging so deeply and thoughtfully. Sounds like you've got the basis for your own Entry there, on pre-Roman European societies.
You obviously know a hell of a lot about the subject, and it's valid to assert that there was a lot in place before and without the Romans.
You shouldn't necessarily expect Elentari to change his thesis to reflect it, though. That's not what Elentari chose to write about.
As for the question of the Romans' contribution to history, it's surely undeniable. Re-writing (or, more correctly, first recording) the annals of a conquered land is part of the spoils of victory, don't you think? In fact, your anecdote about Pliny and the plough actually helps to show what the Romans were about, and how they came to leave their mark. They were assimilators and disseminators, they were supremely well organised and they set the course for the modern-day world by establishing many tenets of government, justice, technology and social conduct over a huge area of the developing world. Protesting that they weren't the first in this or that way may be true, but can't deny the impact of one of the most influential tides of civilisation in the history of mankind.

Hi Pinniped - thanks for the reply - I realise the 'conquered' nations (although the idea of the Romans conquering in a real and lasting sense is now thankfully up for question) wasn't in the brief of the entry, but I still feel some amendment should take place; the Romans simply weren't the almighty conquering force their historians made out; the archaeology certainly doesn't bear this idea out.
Excuse me again for mentioning the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I feel a useful analogue is present. The people of Iraq have been going about their business, much in the same style as present, for many thousands of years (at least the tribal ones, not so much the city dwellers - they've only been there for a few thousand at most ;¬) A largish invading force comes in to conquer, and stamp their own idea of liberty, trade and freedom onto the conquered society, without a great deal of effect on the native psyche - as long as the money floods to Rome (or where-ever) then 'job done'. A little continuing conflict is no bad thing if you are Emperor (or president), because it keeps your armies occupied and you can keep the voter's eye off the ball as far as home matters are concerned.
Anyway, the upshot is that the people, the native population that is, see plenty of mighty rulers come and go, and just get on with their daily business, feeling not the slightest whim to get toga'd up (unless going to a naff party) and the influence of Rome or America is only felt when in direct conflict - for the most part life is business as usual. When the foriegn influence disappears, it remains business as usual, but with the addition of the useful things the foriegn force brought with them being retained by the natives where appropriate - the Romans, in other words, were not the only assimilators.
The account offered here is a bit cut and dried, the real event was much more two way, and as I've mentioned in a post on the 'minerals' entry, some stark innacuracies that could be Googled into correctness still exist. There was plenty of mining going on before the Romans arrived - the entry states that there was none before the Romans arrived.
I appreciate that the nature of the entry precludes exhaustiveness, but accuracy should not be the first victim of brevity.
I think there is a basis for an excellent series of entries here - the writer is doing a good job - but a little more research is required here and there to avoid the material being just plain wrong.
Keep on it mate - this could be really good, but it needs more work. A great early draft.

Oh, and Pinniped?
"They were assimilators and disseminators, they were supremely well organised and they set the course for the modern-day world by establishing many tenets of government, justice, technology and social conduct over a huge area of the developing world. Protesting that they weren't the first in this or that way may be true, but can't deny the impact of one of the most influential tides of civilisation in the history of mankind."

Given the state of play, are you expressing this achievement as a good or bad thing?

Hi ointmede

Neither. I can't really imagine the alternative, so I have to be neutral.
Your take on modern-day Imperialism is interesting, but relating it to the Romans is problematical. It takes a singular viewpoint (which yours might well be) to see the Roman era in the context of a tyranny, rather than the more common view of it as something that happened to get us where we are today.

Anyway, this gives me a great opportunity to show you another corner of h2g2. Take a look at this : A1146917

It's the Forum, self-explanatory through a visit, and the discussion we're having would fit perfectly there. Peer Review gets some good debate but it tends to be wide-ranging and fairly factually based. Places for the Forum are great for deeper ideas and for speculation.

"It takes a singular viewpoint (which yours might well be) to see the Roman era in the context of a tyranny, rather than the more common view of it as something that happened to get us where we are today"

Thanks for the link Pinniped, I'll go and have a look later.
Do you really think I have a singular view? I know at least one prominent archaeologist who views the Romans as the worst thing that happpened to the world, full stop. I agree with him, although I came to the conclusion independently. I find it quite interesting that it is not a more commonly held view.
A quick review of the evidence will provide endless examples of initial military dominance on the Roman side, followed by endless rebellions and uprisings as the natives object to seeing their wealth head out of the country. In a comment that will make me sound like a raving anti-imperialist (god forbid), it was plain as day why the Romans wanted peace and stability - it was so they could count the taxes before they were delivered. So much easier to run an empire if you know what your budget is from one year to the next.
Their notion of bringing civilisation to the world was a poor excuse for for daylight robbery and murder. Shockingly it still works.
A chip on my shoulder?
Erm, yes...
It may seem daft to get riled about something that happened 2000 years ago, but they introduced particularly unpleasent tactics which the unscrupulous are still using today. There were benefits, but the downside outweighs them massively. It's all very well to say 'look what they did for us' but this begs the question;
If they'd stayed in Rome, then what might those countries they invaded have done for themselves.
I can't believe the modern world would be a poorer place without the homogeneity of the Romans.

/rant over, apologies to the easily offended.

Well, maybe the Forum is another insiduous Roman idea, but it's the place for this stuff - not here in PR!

I think the worst thing that ever happened is rather strong, though I would agree that evidence would suggest the Romans were far from benign. However context is all in this case, and the societies the Romans replaced were frequently despotic.

This is is not to suggest the Romans were by any token peaceful or exemplary, let us not forget the games and the torture and murder of Christians, because they challenged the divinity of The Emperor.

I think the truth lies sopmewhere between the two extremes.

Two dates in this are wrong. Julius Caesar invaded in 55 BC, not 55 AD. He came back in 54 BC, not 54 AD. All the rest of the dates are correct as far as I can tell.

Interesting points, Ointmede. I know that many people think that the Romans introduced agriculture to Western Europe. In fact, the Celts already have Great Britain well-and-truly under control, with fields laid out and a good system of agriculture in place. The Celtic ploughs were superior to the Roman ones (they turned the soil as well as cutting the furrow) and the Romans actually set agriculture back a step by insisting on their inferior tools.

Certainly I have my own take on several aspect of Roman history (one need only look at my entry on deforestation as a cause of the imperial collapse) but I would like to make some comments here.

First, Caeser had a very defenite reason for coming to Britain in the first place, which I think should be mentioned. The British Celts were almost indistinguishable from the Gallic Celts whom Caeser was busily pacifying. It was his reasoned opinion that the British Celts were providing supplies (including weapons) to the Gauls and it was in order to cut off this supply line that he went to Britain. Once he had established a treaty with the British tribs, which involved them not sending aid to their brethren on the other side of the Channel, he left them alone. He later returned because they violated the terms of the treaty.

Romans for the most part didn't especially enjoy conquering people. They did it because every time they tried to establish peace on their borders the neighboring tribes would eventually start either fighting each other or fighting the Romans. In order to ensure peaceful trade, it was eventually necessary to conquer people. Although they may have enjoyed the actually conquering and pillaging aspects, for most Roman commanders the idea of actually occupying and governing lands was an onerous burden that they undertook because they had no other choice.

Another aspect that might be mentioned in here is that for Romans accustomed to the Italian climate, Britain was a miserable place to be. Only the invention of the first glass windows around 100 BC made it even conceivable for any Roman to live there, and throughout the Imperial period the individuals assigned as governors and legion commanders in Britain were often those who were in the Emperor's disfavor or else those whom the Emperor saw as a threat. In some cases this was because they actually were a threat because they were ambitious and popular. While there were a large number of uprisings against Imperial authority in Britain over the years, the majority of these were uprisings by the British legions seeking to instate their general as the Emperor. This was legally possible because all generals, when given command over their legions, were officially endowed with imperium, meaning command. Because the Emperor was technically the Imperator (holder of the imperium) any general had a technical claim to be the Emperor if he had the popular support of his troops.

But I digress. I like what is written in the entry but I agree that it is too concise as written.

People say this is too concise, but it is supposed to be an overview, and to link to all the other entries in the project, which will fill in the details.

Star Kindler, I suggest you have a look at one of Jodan's entries on the American Civil War. See how he puts a link at the top of each entry to all the other entries in the project. You can copy his GuideML to do this.

Thank you Gnomon.

It occurs to me that for this entry in particualr, it is going to be impossible to please everybody.

What most of the contributor's to this thread, I think, need to bear in mind is that they seem to know mmore detail about Roman Briotain than the average. Someone who is reading the entry based on the title, as a brief overview, does not need or want (neccessarily) all this information and it is neccessary to leave bits out as the entry would b far too long otherwise.

There have been good points made which I will take on board as soon as I have time.

RE: Caesar's expeditions, they were indeed BC, that was a typo.

I apologise if some of my information is wrong, that may be my fault or it may be the fault of my teacher - I've just finished the first year of my A level Ancient History - I stusdied Roman Britain for a year and got an A so I like to think I generally know my stuff, but I'll look into it.

Thanks.

PS. Sorry, I've forgotten your name, but whoever it was who referred to my as "he", you are mistaken.

More typos, sorry.

Hi Elentari,

Keep up the good work - what you have written in your entries is quite an achievement for any researcher. You also appear to be taking the PR comments on board in the right way. You are getting some very good, quality feedback here from people, so it is certainly worth bearing what they are telling you in mind, and adjusting your material where appropriate. If there are strong points of difference, it may be worth creating a brief footnote which outlines a contrary view.

I think this is a fantastic learning opportunity for you and all of us - so don't be disheartened if you get challenged by others - among other things it means that people are fully engaged with your entries. When this gets into the Edited Guide it will be worth every minute of it.