- This topic has 6 voices and 18 replies.
-
Posts
-
The Romans had a bad case of “Let's see how far we can spread our domain like Alexander the Great” syndrome. They ultimately realized that Britain was indefensible and not worth the effort.
Yes but it may have been “indefensible” only from a logistics standpoint. Obviously, being an island, it would normally be easier to contain and control the peoples living in that area. After all, there is a strategic advantage to having one's territory surrounded by water.But evidently the natives were a little too restless and - according to the Boudica program - they normally trained in warfare. I believe they practiced their warring arts even as a form of leisure. This would make them naturally adapt to being a pain in the neck to the Romans. If the Romans could have replenished or reinforced its army in greater numbers, they may have been able to rule the entire island. While the Celtic warriors were fierce, they were not trained in unit fighting to the extent the Romans were, and their weapons and armor was inferior.
Like we've said many times, a foreign occupation force rarely succeeds in it's attempt to hold a people within their own country hostage for very long.
Like we've said many times, a foreign occupation force rarely succeeds in it's attempt to hold a people within their own country hostage for very long.
I like the word Rarely (LOL). In fact the Romans colonised the British mainland for five centuries, which is a pretty good record by anybody's standard.
I like the word Rarely (LOL). In fact the Romans colonised the British mainland for five centuries, which is a pretty good record by anybody's standard.
Colonizing isn't the same as walking into someones homeland and trying to hold it against their will.
By the time the Romans left Britain, Britain was Romanized. And there really wasn't a lot of Romans there to begin with. Though they did bring many Governors and such and a majority of the legionary leadership was Mediterranean, much of the forces in Britain were Britains doing their service in the army. And Rome did not leave Britain because they could not defend their rule there. The Roman resources were pulled from Britain to defent Roman rule in mainland Europe. Britain was abaondoned! and they took all their knowledge with them…hence the beginning of the Dark Ages.
See our discussions on the Dark Ages where we discovered that the Dark Ages weren't so Dark afterall.
True, they weren't dark, but if you look at the technology that was available in Britain while the Romans were there, and then look at what happened after they left. Just a simple thing like morter for building with stone. The Britains had to regress to building with wood and mud stucco. Heck they didn't even have enough knowhow to maintain the building and structure that the Romans left behind. Writing was lost to 99%. Who know what the place would have looked like to Duke William in 1066 had the Norse and Danes not had their effect.
True, they weren't dark, but if you look at the technology that was available in Britain while the Romans were there, and then look at what happened after they left. Just a simple thing like morter for building with stone. The Britains had to regress to building with wood and mud stucco. Heck they didn't even have enough knowhow to maintain the building and structure that the Romans left behind. Writing was lost to 99%. Who know what the place would have looked like to Duke William in 1066 had the Norse and Danes not had their effect.
I believe they had the know how, it's just they didn't have the financial resources or the justification to build extravagantly. Most of the Roman constructions were designed for defensive purposes in mind. After the Romans left, there wasn't any external threats on the island so the defensive mindset was eased.
Initially, the generation that watched as the legions left Britain probably had the skills, but as you said, the lack of resources and the missing logistical system of Rome was gone. I believe that the skills were probably lost by the second generation.
Well they had the skills to build Stonehenge before the Romans arrived. What they lacked was manpower. Rome had an abundance of slave labor and plebians to build colisseums and aqueducts. Britain didn't have the kind of population base required to build so extravagantly. I'm sure there were stone cutters and builders who could erect impressive structures, but who was going to build them and who was going to pay for them?
There still was the manpower there but not the managerial and logistical system that Rome had to direct it all. Plus once the Romans left, local tribes took over and it would be a long time before any strong leadership would be established in Britain. Hence, Britian's ripeness for the Vikings.
There still was the manpower there but not the managerial and logistical system that Rome had to direct it all. Plus once the Romans left, local tribes took over and it would be a long time before any strong leadership would be established in Britain. Hence, Britian's ripeness for the Vikings.
Are you really blaming British "ripeness" for Viking raids on the fact that the Roman Empire debouched from the Island some 400-500 years before the major raids started? Thus leaving the poor pitiful Britons completely unprepared to defend their homes and families. I would come up with an emoticon for incredulous disbelief but I cant think of one with the requisite emotive ability.
Ok perhaps I mistyped when I threw in the word “Viking” but it was within a few generation after Rome left when the Saxons quickly moved into Britain setting up the kingdoms of Mercia, Wessex and Kent. Though it was much later when the Danes finally came over and set up Danelaw. But the Vikings had been trickeling into the Shetlands and Orkneys in the mid 8th century.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
