Early Britons: Have we underestimated our ancestors? Horizon tonight

[tombear]

Ah, I deliberately left out Scotland as there were significant trade and movement across any border such and I didn't want to fuzz issues. Also I must confess to not knowing as much about the Picts as I should and how they fits in culturally/ racially with the rest of Britain.

interestingly ( well to me as I thought I'd read plenty ) I recently discovered what the contemporary name for the Carlisle/ Newcastle wall was. A few years back they found what's basically some tourist tat ( quite a nice bronze bowl actually but definitely for the souvenir market) which named some of the forts and gave the name of the whole thing the Aelian Wall after the emperors middle , family name.

Infanticide well it still goes on, sad to say, I can't find any references that says other contemporary didnt indulge in that particularly nasty practice ( and that's my 20th century morals showing ). Just the Roman one is well documented.

The programme worth watching but as its already been said theres nowt earth shattering unless you've only read books tat are 50 years old and absolutely nothing recent. It's a good recap if you are new to the subject and haven't watched Time Team et al. It's the curse of dumbing down or don't get made as they won't get the

Macbeth? ok the lad did well but it was only 17 years even if you include when Malcom was chasing him about. even the Pope stabbed him in the back in the end. One thing I need to look in to is how well Scotland fared in the emediate aftermath of the Norman Conquest down here, I've always assumed the Normans were too concerned with stamping on the English to bother anyone north of the border.

Better haul the oak chest that was delivered at 6.15 this AM up to the shed to see how rough it is. The inlaws are clearing out their cottage in the Brecon Beacons ( too infirm to maintain it so selling up to avoid death duties etc on it ). The wife decided she must have this thing and they sent it north to us. Evidentally someone's dogs chewed it so I may have to do a repair job. I've no idea how old it is, cottage is 17th C but the chest could be a 1950s job for all know. A bit of research into provincial furniture is in order. If its really old I won't do much to it al all.

ATB

Tom

 

[21st century pict]

Infanticide well it still goes on, sad to say,

Aye sadly very true.

Macbeth? ok the lad did well but it was only 17 years even if you include when Malcolm was chasing him about. even the Pope stabbed him in the back in the end.

Citizens weren't really recognised in laws until the Magna Carta, .

Aye, and talking of a stab in the back the Pope declared the Magna Carta null and void to.

MacBeth wasn't killed by the hand of Malcolm but by Malcolm's men when he was returning to Moray. Lulach, MacBeth's grandson or stepson was elected to succeed and crowned at Scone 8th September 1057, and Malcolm crowned 1058 used assassins to killed Lulach by treachery, thus begun the Scoto-Norman age.
Ps MacBeth never killed Duncan, Duncan was mortally wounded in a battle near Burghead or Pitgaveny with Thorfinn, the Viking Earl of Orkney, Duncan later bled to death in Elgin. Duncan was a rubbish King anyway. MacBeth was later elected King. Shakespeare's play MacBeth is a complete work of fiction, which for some reason is generally accepted fact.

 

[dewi]

Raiding isn't the same as occupation, the latter has a far greater effect on how a society develops. Prior to the conquest Ireland had a very similar culture to the rest of the British isles, without domination by another power would the rest Britain developed any differently to how Ireland did?

Agreed, two totally different things, but depending on the frequency and duration of each attack/invasion, that will scar a society and arguably change it.

Slavery was ok to them, it was the norm, even freed slaves were happy to own slaves. Hardly anyone was opposed to slavery unless it was them being enslaved. Why should our modern standards be imposed on a different age with different morals and circumstances?

Good point.

The Britons didnt abandon human sacrifice it was forced upon them, rather like the Indians were forced to stop suttee and thuggee was suppressed.

My angle was though that stopping one barbaric practice to replace it with another isn't something to be held as a success... but then there is the argument that "Why should our modern standards be imposed on a different age with different morals and circumstances?"... circular argument I'll admit.

Er, how does domination and enslavement etc by your immediate neighbours differ from it being done by some one from across the channel? Is it somehow better if its your distant cousin doing it rather than someone with a funny accent?

Again, good point, but this is a strange one. Fast forwarding in history to the early to mid 20th century, Britons would accept living under a strict, almost totalitarian society because the rules were set out by the British... had the Germans succeeded in invading and occupying Britain, do you think those same people would have accept living under the same rules with a German leader at the helm?

The culture of a ruling elite, which is generally what survives and is recorded and until relatively recently was what people were interested in doesn't have to have any real effect or influence on the masses that support it. How different was the lives of people in vast swathes of India before and after 100 years of British rule? How many took up British habits or customs? How influenced by the fashions in court in say Tudor Britain would a hill farmer in Wales be at the same time ? It's rather jumping to conclusions that a new type of swirly patterned broach that's going to be dug up two thousand years later is going to be much concern, influence or even interest to some guy who holds his rags together with a long thorn plucked from a bush! Did the natives suddenly start to slavishly copy the roman styles of pot or did things change gradually as before? The odd one may have done to cater for a specific market and as technology changed or tastes changed but he certainly didnt do it because of some directive from Rome.

And that is the meat and veg of the argument. The culture wasn't changing and adapting on arrival of the Romans, the Romans stamped on the local population and removed elements of their way of life overnight. The most obvious was removing all the weapons from a tribe.. a precaution by the Romans, but a cultural hammer blow. The Americans did the same thing in Japan after WW2... removing the swords from families as a precaution without realising the cultural significance of what they were doing. The reference to India, arguably the Brits did the same thing to them. My point initially was more about what Britain would look like without the influence of Rome, without 400 years of occupation... but then there are countless other invaders that would have followed and no doubt stamped out the cultures of the original tribes anyway. Case in point, Africa. Multiple nations have took over Africa throughout the ages and changed the original tribes forever.

No one knows what the population was before the Romans arrived but the general consensus is it was a lot more than was previously thought and far more of the land was being cultivated. It could have been anything from 2 to 4 million and stayed pretty steady up until the great plagues of the 6th century. If the new regime was so harsh on the vast majority of the population and sp oppressive how could such a small force conquer them and keep them down? The Romans didnt force them to stop drinking beer or start wearing certain clothes or living there lives differently, only those in charge who didnt become romanised themselves seeing more benefits than losses lose out. And let's face it unless they have been particularly good to you who cares if one boss is replaced by another? Apart from the Druids, and without the Romans biased reports who knows anything about them that can be taken as fact, who were leading the opposition to the Romans and therefore to the Romans a legitimate target, and the whole not killing people to appease the gods thing, was religious freedom something that became a issue?

Small force? At one point the Romans had more soldiers stationed in Britain than across the rest of their empire, well over a million troops. If the population of Britain was 4 million (although I could have sworn I read it was larger than that) the Romans would have had one soldier for every four in population. When the Romans marched on the north, long before they reached Scotland, they sent two legions. One up the west of the country, one up the east and the combined forces totally 11,000 soldiers were sent into what we now call the Lake District... the population there was probably about 20,000 at the time, so the Romans had 1 soldier for every 2 locals. That is one big oppressive force right there. Why did it take such a large force to take Britain? Why did the Romans send so many legions if not to stamp on the tribes that resided here? That is not to say that the tribes of Britain were particularly nice to one another and the internal wars fought would have been considerably reduced, if not removed completely by the presence of the Romans, but we just don't know truly what was here before... the history books were rewritten by the Romans, as happens countless times across the world were one force suppresses a nation.

Apart from after wars and rebellions did the Romans cart off many slaves? Surely they were more useful over here, growing crops to export or paying taxes? Did the population increase during the Roman period?, all the evidence says it did. That's generally a indicator of improving conditions, more secure food supplies, better farming techniques etc the ability to ship in supplies from other parts of the empire if required.

The population did increase, but not necessarily because of improved conditions. The Romans brought people from all over their empire to Britain, their logic being that if you take a conquered population from one part of Europe and put them in another, they were less likely to rise up against their oppressors. They did exactly the same to the Britons. Shipped them off around the empire. In the first 40 to 50 years of occupation, Britain had been changed beyond recognition. Those indigenous people kept here were sent to the mines to extract gold, silver and iron and it is doubtful they saw improving conditions. They either mined ore or died, the Romans couldn't have cared less as long as the precious metals kept filling the ships returning to mainland Europe.

The sad fact is that no matter how loathsome the new regime is people will adjust to live under it, By the mores of the time the Nazis were more extreme in their unpleasantness, shall we call it , different from the ways of living, thinking of the folk they were invading than the Romans were to the Britons. Yet vast areas put up with it. A tiny minority resisted and as conditions worsened due to the effect of outside forces more did so but perfectly decent ordinary people just got on with their lives, maybe paid lip service to bizarre new rules. Their lives didn't change just because they were occupied. Other outside forces like the blockade or allied bombing effected them far more until in desperation the nazis started carting them off for slave labour.

The sheer scale of the Roman military operation in Britain points towards the fact that it wasn't a small minority who would resist. The Romans underestimated the resistance they would encounter here and eventually had to draw a line in their expansion... they bit off more than they could chew... probably quite literally. As I say, the meat and veg of it is that the Romans stamped on the Brits... they annihilated any tribe that would resist. They were arguably more brutal here in Britain than anywhere else in their empire... but then the pay off was huge. I forget the nickname the Romans gave to the Britains, but it wasn't very flattering. They viewed themselves superior in every way and they paid for it at Colchester and London when they overstepped the mark with the Iceni. I say overstepped the mark, that is probably a bit of an understatement, but when it came to paying back the Romans for their hospitality, the Roman texts of the time document the Britains attempting to remove the Romans as the Romans had done to them. They headed straight for the monuments, the buildings of worship... burning them to the ground and butchering everyone inside. Doesn't make for good bed time reading, lets put it that way.

As to the whole golden age bit, yeah best leave that well alone.

By the way if I offend i'll immediately stop, debating to me is just a bit of intellectual fun, so if I'm going too far or am insulting someone's belief system let me know!

Not offended at all... we're speculating on the little knowledge there is of the period and probably as you've pointed out, I'm viewing past events with the morals of the present day... but at least if I start to lose an argument, I have a great get out now... I just need to invent some sort of belief system that can be insulted

 

[tombear]

Um, one big problem here, where do you get the one million troops bit as the largest number I've ever read of is 4 legions and about the same number of auxiliaries, which is what 40 thousand if , and they never where, they were fully up to strength. A million would be the equivalent of 200 full strength legions. . There were about 25 for the whole empire during this period, 30 odd later on say 215AD,

As I said that assumes that the units were up to strength , it was quite usual for even units involved in campaigns to have numerous men away doing all sorts of jobs so the actually numbers of combat troops available was even less.

You seam to forget that a large part of the British ruling class were all for quitting after Dunkirk and a lot of the population had admired the looney (hitler) before the war The amount of effort put into the secret stay behind home guard troops who's main purpose was to assinate the quislings who would go over to the enemy speaks volumes at the fear of extensive collaboration the government had. The logical figure head for the British quislings would have been Edward who had been packed off to the colonies but with orders to his bodyguard that he was to be killed rather than be grabbed by the Germans. The Dutch, Danes, Norwegians etc all put up with occupation, they did what they had to survive, some would have resisted and I'm enough of a dreamer that I'd believe we would have resisted more than on the continent but still the majority would have done what they had to for their families. The evil of the nazi regime wasn't realised by the vast majority until much later so it would have easier for them to delude themselves than it is with the hind sight we have.

Yes they removed the weapons but once again, who had the weapons ? Who could afford them? Once again it was the ruling elite, OK to a lower level but it was still just a part of society that was warriors, perhaps a handful in a village and loyal to who ever was in charge.

i really don't know where you are getting the idea that the Romans shifted huge populations about the empire, logistically that was beyond them and even auxiliary units used locals to replace losses which is shown in the names recorded in stuff like the Vindolanda tablets. Late on when the migration period was in full swing they did send large bodies of the invading Germanic people's to various areas to settle but that's a whole different thing. There was a large amount of civilian movement around the empire but that was voluntary, to better themselves, make money.

There was no single nation, just a lot of tribes that could be played off against each other and picked off and no identity that they were Britons, some of the coastal tribes had more in common with folk on the continent rather than their emediate neighbours. Roman Armies tended to have a lot of allied troops when they went off on campaign, not auxialries but under their own leaders fighting in their traditional style subsidised by the Romans but mainly going along to loot and settle old scores. Estimating the actual size of a Roman force is always difficulty, neigh on impossible because of their weird way of recruiting and releasing soldiers in blocka a legion could be at only 50 percent of its nominal strength to start with let alone allowing for losses, men on leave, men seconded to the civil government . The Egyptian returns show how few men could actually be in any unit at any one time. I think this explains when you look at barracks and even the reconstructed tentage and think how the hell did they fit all those men into here for such extended periods , oh because they didn't. To give a more recent examples by the end of WW2 , despite modern methods , infantry sections were often down from a nominal 10 to say 6 and where still being used. So when it's said two legions did this what they really mean is x number of reduced strength cohorts from two legions did it.

After The Claudians Britain was a side show, for most of the time it was controlled by 3 under strength legions, occasionally parts of a couple more if a big op was planned. For large chunks of the occupation the Auxilaries were as much British as they were say Gaulish or Tungian. OK British named Auxilary units were being used only on the continent but no doubt they ended up with many locals in them. Even the three nominally British based legions had units stationed overseas although to balance that they keep finding stuff that indicates other legions had units in Britain when they technically should have been on the Rhine . The paper work must have been a nightmare ! But I digress.

so if they had all been carted off to the continent, where do the Romano British fit in? Asside from the Romanised Chieftains living on their estates and shiny new villas who were all those doing the the farming and trades. OK a lot could have been slaves but surely on fringes especially there was a continuity. Round houses were still being built, villages still existed with continuation into the early Saxon period? When the last first line Roman troops packed up and went off to fight fires on the continent who was left? It was the Britons. The rulers had changed and indeed some of those at the bottom rose to become roman ruling class types themselves and no doubt formed what ever ruling class there was that would get pushed around by the next lot of invaders, and they didnt even bring plumbing with them! Even a bit of France is known for the British who moved there to get away from the rascally Germanic types. So the Britons were around after the Romans had wandered off, and from what they left behind the Romans hadn't totally suppressed their old ways of life even after 400 years.! I've always been surprised how quickly the typically Roman elements, large estates, villas, towns disappeared and the roundhouse, village and tribal returned, it's almost as they never really went away.

Ok the Iceni revolted, they had been pushed too far by a relatively small number of incompetent administrators but look at the rest of the country, who joined in and who kept their heads down and waited to see who won? And look at the size of the force that then pretty much wipe them out, a fraction of their size. Mind I've always taken the size of the force Boudica had with a pinch of salt, I think it's a classic bigging the enemy numbers to make yourself look good after some pretty awful set backs, episodes of morale cowardice and poor management of the locals who obviously hadn't been sent enough wine, olives and indoor plumbing.

And I will now sign off and get some crafting done, rain and thunder here so the garden can get stuffed.

Cheers, I do find this stuff stimulating!

ATB

Tom

 

[dewi]

Um, one big problem here, where do you get the one million troops bit as the largest number I've ever read of is 4 legions and about the same number of auxiliaries, which is what 40 thousand if , and they never where, they were fully up to strength. A million would be the equivalent of 200 full strength legions. . There were about 25 for the whole empire during this period, 30 odd later on say 215AD,

Off I went to Google, convinced I'd got my numbers right... and I didn't... I was wrong. The initial invading fleet was 40k. Increased to 55k within a century. 70 auxiliary regiments, which I presumed to be 70 x 5500, was in fact just 40k of men, not 385k. No idea why I got the numbers so wrong... but wrong as a wrong person can be when wrong. All I can think is that there was a million soldiers serving here in total over the whole Roman occupation... but I'll have to go back to my books to read up where I got it wrong.

The bit I got right was that the forces in Britain were the largest deployment in any single province of the Roman empire. They may not have had the same ratio to the population as my maths worked out, but its still not what you would call a small force. The Romans deployed more troops to Britain than anywhere to keep the population under control.

As I said that assumes that the units were up to strength , it was quite usual for even units involved in campaigns to have numerous men away doing all sorts of jobs so the actually numbers of combat troops available was even less.

Combat units replaced with auxiliary units.

You seam to forget that a large part of the British ruling class were all for quitting after Dunkirk and a lot of the population had admired the looney (hitler) before the war The amount of effort put into the secret stay behind home guard troops who's main purpose was to assinate the quislings who would go over to the enemy speaks volumes at the fear of extensive collaboration the government had. The logical figure head for the British quislings would have been Edward who had been packed off to the colonies but with orders to his bodyguard that he was to be killed rather than be grabbed by the Germans. The Dutch, Danes, Norwegians etc all put up with occupation, they did what they had to survive, some would have resisted and I'm enough of a dreamer that I'd believe we would have resisted more than on the continent but still the majority would have done what they had to for their families. The evil of the nazi regime wasn't realised by the vast majority until much later so it would have easier for them to delude themselves than it is with the hind sight we have.

I've no doubt if we were occupied by the Germans, the majority of people would have complied, but my point was that even though under the British government at the time the country was under strict rules about what could and couldn't be done, people accepted it as part of the war effort. If the Germans had occupied, the rules would probably have been similar, but people's attitudes would have altered considerably.

Yes they removed the weapons but once again, who had the weapons ? Who could afford them? Once again it was the ruling elite, OK to a lower level but it was still just a part of society that was warriors, perhaps a handful in a village and loyal to who ever was in charge.

I was under the impression that almost all male Silures and the majority of the Iceni were personally armed at the beginning of the Roman invasion? Not sure about the tribe the Romans first encountered, the leader of them was the one who fled to the Silures and eventually was taken to Rome when captured.

i really don't know where you are getting the idea that the Romans shifted huge populations about the empire, logistically that was beyond them and even auxiliary units used locals to replace losses which is shown in the names recorded in stuff like the Vindolanda tablets. Late on when the migration period was in full swing they did send large bodies of the invading Germanic people's to various areas to settle but that's a whole different thing. There was a large amount of civilian movement around the empire but that was voluntary, to better themselves, make money.

I didn't say the Romans shifted huge populations around the empire, but they did shift people around the empire. The forces stationed in the Lake District were not Roman, but conscripted from elsewhere in Europe. I'll have to reread about the Brits who were sent to Gaul.. not sure of the numbers involved.

There was no single nation, just a lot of tribes that could be played off against each other and picked off and no identity that they were Britons, some of the coastal tribes had more in common with folk on the continent rather than their emediate neighbours. Roman Armies tended to have a lot of allied troops when they went off on campaign, not auxialries but under their own leaders fighting in their traditional style subsidised by the Romans but mainly going along to loot and settle old scores. Estimating the actual size of a Roman force is always difficulty, neigh on impossible because of their weird way of recruiting and releasing soldiers in blocka a legion could be at only 50 percent of its nominal strength to start with let alone allowing for losses, men on leave, men seconded to the civil government . The Egyptian returns show how few men could actually be in any unit at any one time. I think this explains when you look at barracks and even the reconstructed tentage and think how the hell did they fit all those men into here for such extended periods , oh because they didn't. To give a more recent examples by the end of WW2 , despite modern methods , infantry sections were often down from a nominal 10 to say 6 and where still being used. So when it's said two legions did this what they really mean is x number of reduced strength cohorts from two legions did it.

Didn't suggest there was a single nation, but anyway... a legion wasn't just about the fighting men though was it? It contained builders, surveyors, cooks, carpenters, leather workers, even prostitutes (both male and female)... makes little or no difference to the people seeing that army move into position or occupy an area. Locals are not going to distinguish terribly between who is a fighting man and who isn't... no, they'll see an invading force and a massive one from their perspective. Over 5000 descend on an area with a population that is little over 20k... and that population would have been spread out over a wide area.

After The Claudians Britain was a side show, for most of the time it was controlled by 3 under strength legions, occasionally parts of a couple more if a big op was planned. For large chunks of the occupation the Auxilaries were as much British as they were say Gaulish or Tungian. OK British named Auxilary units were being used only on the continent but no doubt they ended up with many locals in them. Even the three nominally British based legions had units stationed overseas although to balance that they keep finding stuff that indicates other legions had units in Britain when they technically should have been on the Rhine . The paper work must have been a nightmare ! But I digress.

Claudius barely moved out of the south east corner of Britain, the conquering of Britain was hardly a side show. Repeated attempts to conquer what is now Wales went on for years after Claudius. As I said before, the Romans would bring people here to administer/build/occupy from elsewhere in Europe and people from here where sent out to Europe from here... but you disagreed with me about the movement of people a minute ago? Puzzled.

so if they had all been carted off to the continent, where do the Romano British fit in? Asside from the Romanised Chieftains living on their estates and shiny new villas who were all those doing the the farming and trades. OK a lot could have been slaves but surely on fringes especially there was a continuity. Round houses were still being built, villages still existed with continuation into the early Saxon period? When the last first line Roman troops packed up and went off to fight fires on the continent who was left? It was the Britons. The rulers had changed and indeed some of those at the bottom rose to become roman ruling class types themselves and no doubt formed what ever ruling class there was that would get pushed around by the next lot of invaders, and they didnt even bring plumbing with them! Even a bit of France is known for the British who moved there to get away from the rascally Germanic types. So the Britons were around after the Romans had wandered off, and from what they left behind the Romans hadn't totally suppressed their old ways of life even after 400 years.! I've always been surprised how quickly the typically Roman elements, large estates, villas, towns disappeared and the roundhouse, village and tribal returned, it's almost as they never really went away.

I didn't say they had all be carted off to the continent. You've just said yourself in the previous paragraph that 'British named auxiliary units were used only on the continent'... so did native Britons leave these shores or not?

Ok the Iceni revolted, they had been pushed too far by a relatively small number of incompetent administrators but look at the rest of the country, who joined in and who kept their heads down and waited to see who won? And look at the size of the force that then pretty much wipe them out, a fraction of their size. Mind I've always taken the size of the force Boudica had with a pinch of salt, I think it's a classic bigging the enemy numbers to make yourself look good after some pretty awful set backs, episodes of morale cowardice and poor management of the locals who obviously hadn't been sent enough wine, olives and indoor plumbing.

If this island was so safe and under Roman control, why station so many troops here? Why build the strategic forts when all they needed was administration building for the submissive population? There is no doubt the Romans were superior fighting units when compared to the fragmented tribal behaviour of the Brits, but why so many attempts to take Wales? Why build a whacking great wall to keep the Scots out? Why the huge military buildings in the hills of the Lake District?

Tend to agree with you about the bigging up of enemy numbers by the Romans though. Boudica was supposed to have over 10k of warriors, but even if that number were true, how did she arm them? More importantly, how did she feed them? There wasn't just 10k of swords, axes and hamburgers laying around for them to grab was there?

And I will now sign off and get some crafting done, rain and thunder here so the garden can get stuffed.

Cheers, I do find this stuff stimulating!

I love history, but I'm interested in so many different periods in so many different parts of the world... its a lot of stuff to keep in your head before you start pushing other info out. Its only the other day I was reading about ancient Babylon and a week earlier I'd been reading about King John... even more fascinated about this whole new pyramid thing... just a case of separating the facts from the speculation.

 

[tombear]

Back again, ended up mainly clearing up the shed and pulling stuff out of jars of oil to dry/ cure .

fair enough, it was the biggest occupation force for the size of the country but unlike the other province, for. A significant chunk of the year Briton couldn't be reinforced, everywhere else you could shuffle units about but it was hard enough to get the average Roman soldier on a boat let alone outside of the summer months.

The types of troops you mention, surveyors etc are counted with the the legions fighting units and would be part of the normal centuries just they were excused fatigues. 5500 men is a pitifully small force to occupy whole swathes of a hostile country, in modern terms about a brigade which with all the other tasks it would be have to send off. As I've pointed out it would be lucky to be at half strength in any case after the first few years. It's men couldn't be replaced by locals. Ok far more were occupied with rear echelon duties but during WW2 a whole division, 8 or 10 thousand men would be expected to hold a front of five miles. Just 5 miles.

I disagreed about it being a mass movement and a enforced movement . The British manned Auxiliary units were a few units of 500 to a thousand men and were all volunteers, nothing forced about them moving. The numbers of people that came over was relatively small, the saturation point for shop keepers and pimps must have been pretty low.

you seam to think that the forces were huge, to occupy a whole country they were tiny. Put it this way the Met police force if you include the volunteers, support staff etc has nearly 52 thousand , and that in modern law abiding compact London with all the advantages. Killed and wounded w lost 60 thousand on one day in the Great War.

The legions also formed most of the civil service and oversaw all the road building, major works and especially later on defended the borders against external threats, the Picts, Irish , Germans etc etc. and all moving at the pace of a mule.

oops, battery about to go, better hit send!

atb

Tom

 

[Robson Valley]

How does the movement of people relate to the rising and falling of sea levels between Britain and the continent? That might contribute to the "exploration gap."
From time to time, I see stunning examples of the technological sophistication of the metal arts from the UK, artifacts of millenia in age.

It most certainly has made it nearly impossible to track human movement from Beringia into the Americas while the Vikings were later knocking on the eastern door.
Recent submarine archaeology shows modern style, unchanging style/design stone fish trap weirs as far out and down along ancient river courses as the divers dared to go.

 

[dewi]

In direct comparison between the number of people it takes to control the population of London and the number of people the Romans needed to control the provinces, the Roman forces were huge.

Any gathering of people in those times in direct opposition to the Roman forces may have numbered in the thousands, but they'd have to assemble, have some sort of leadership structure and organise a strategy against a trained fighting force. 5,500 men trained in close combat, a small portion of whom would be veterans of many campaigns... you can bet your last pound I think it was a huge force.

Take a relatively sparsely populated area like Norfolk for instance. As the Romans marched through, even an organised resistance to them would have been poorly armed and trained by comparison... the modern day equivalent would be sending a dozen armed special forces into any medium sized town in the UK. Yes, they could be rushed by a mass of people, but who's leading that charge? Who is first to the tip of that spear? Any volunteers from the good people of Chipping Norton who fancy using kitchen knives and rolling pins against 12 highly trained and armed soldiers?

Now combine two legions. 11k of men marched through what is now the Lake District. The entire population at that time was around 22k and they were spread out throughout the region. Lets say they come across a gathering of a thousand armed men... how likely do you think it would be that those thousand men will still be standing after an hour of fighting? And if news travels, how likely do you think it is another thousand men will gather just down the road for round two?

Direct comparisons to modern day military conflicts is impossible because modern day fighting forces don't tend to fight hand to hand. They use projectile weaponry, armoured vehicles and radio communications to co-ordinate... that's before we get to flying machines, artillery guns and high explosives.

I do take your point about the channel crossing though. Although saying that, the Romans established quite a few supply ports and military drop off points around Britain and I disagree that it'd have been hard to put a Roman soldier onto a boat. Cavalry on the other hand... now I bet that was tricky.

 

[dewi]

How does the movement of people relate to the rising and falling of sea levels between Britain and the continent? That might contribute to the "exploration gap."
From time to time, I see stunning examples of the technological sophistication of the metal arts from the UK, artifacts of millenia in age.

It most certainly has made it nearly impossible to track human movement from Beringia into the Americas while the Vikings were later knocking on the eastern door.
Recent submarine archaeology shows modern style, unchanging style/design stone fish trap weirs as far out and down along ancient river courses as the divers dared to go.

There was a fascinating documentary on a while ago about the land which is now covered by the North Sea... I didn't watch it all, but I'm going to see if I can find it on the telly box thingy... could be wrong, but I'm sure that happened a long time before the Roman occupation of Britain. The English channel was certainly a barrier as the Romans had to arrive by boat... they expected to be fighting from the moment they landed, but for the most part it went without incident. At that point in the invasion, they pretty much just walked into Britain and established camp.

 

[21st century pict]

you seam to think that the forces were huge, to occupy a whole country they were tiny.

Cladius's General Aulus Plautius, invaded Britain with 40,000 heavily armed troops.

the Picts, Irish, Germans etc etc. and all moving at the pace of a mule.

The German tribes destroyed three Roman legions in a ambush at the battle of Teuotborg Forest , That's the difference between a war and a campaign, the romans eventually lost. VALE ROMANES...

 

[dewi]

Cladius's General invaded Britain with 40,000 heavily armed troops.
the German tribes destroyed three Roman legions in a ambush at the battle of Teuotborg Forest , That's the difference between a war and a campaign, the romans eventually lost.

The Teuotborg Forest.. that was the one were they lured the Romans into a forest clearing, killed them all, then skinned the general to use as a war banner wasn't it?

 

[21st century pict]

The Teuotborg Forest.. that was the one were they lured the Romans into a forest clearing, killed them all, then skinned the general to use as a war banner wasn't it?

Hi Dewi,Yeah, they got a fancy scalp that day all right, I bet the Romans had a hard time putting a spin on that one, Rome's worst defeat ever, must have been a bad day, considering they lost 86,000 at the battle of Cannae.

 

[tombear]

As I've pointed out 11 thousand for two legions is just not a reasonable real strength, just a idealised one but lets go with itanyway, Lets say that the Lake District is 850 square miles give or take. That's about 13 men per square mile. 13. To control it requires patrolling, extensive, exhausting patrolling you can't wallow around in big formations hoping to come across a big formed body of men to defeat and then go home for a nice cup of posca.

On a bigger scale if you have a nominal strength of say 50 thousand Roman troops for England and Wales that's to take police administer everything that's one legionary or Auxilary for just over a square mile.

you have to concentrate forces to protect them but apart from before pitched battles you have to keep them relatively dispersed so hey can live off the land and control areas.

Look at how many men it took to pacify Malaya during the emergency for the number of CTs on the other side, the nature of the terrain pretty much nullified the advantages of the modern age and engagements occurred at almost hand to hand ranges. Radios routinely failed, vehicles were useless and aerial support hardly influenced the final out come.

So Norfolk was easy to take, that's just one place, but you'd still have to cover your lines of communications through it so it would be a drain on operations else where.

Thats rather my point, most of the Britons had no interest in fighting what was in it for them? The ruling elite had suffered and even if ther was a hundred Britons for every Roman ( a very low estimation) the numbers who both could and wanted to fight just was not there . Had there been a general will to kick the Romans out I'm sure they would have had a good go. Plenty of Romans back home thought the whole thing was a waste of time, like putting in the effort to take the rest, Scotland, Ireland et al. Eventually they just needed the troops elsewhere so they just went. Losing face probably stopped them pulling out on other occasions.

The Romans managed to lose most of a entire army at sea coming back from a defeat in North Africa and were extremely reluctant to cross open water at the best of times, their ships were pretty rubbish as sea boats, hence all the juicy wrecks. Famously the Claudian invasion forced mutinied over crossing the channel and had to be coaxed, shamed and bribed to cross. They had a especial fear of the channel and North Sea, being used to Med conditions. Later they developed some skill and confidence and regularly moved supplies around the coast, in the right season. Winter crossings were only done under dire pressure and the absolutely best conditions. A seagul flying the wrong way when the augers were being read and it was back up the beach.

The Romans had specialised horse carrying ships, later on the Arabs developed the technique while Europe had to learn it all again. At least Horses didnt get all windy if they heard some sheep had a funny mark on its kidneys! I have a trouble getting my head around just how monumentally superstitious the ancients where.

Anyway, bed for Me with that chap off Time Teams " Hadrians wall, history and guide ", typically I didn't get to read it when we were up there last week, so far it's a real page turner, nothing to confuse me so far.

ATB

TOM

 

[21st century pict]

Anyway, bed for Me with that chap.

ATB

TOM

Night Tom, Lets cross swords again some time, It's been a blast Bro.
ATB
Pol

 

[21st century pict]

Oh Yeah, and for all you Shakespearean luvvie's out there, "The Scottish Play", grow some n##s, MacBeth MacBeth MacBeth...

 

[tombear]

Cladius's General Aulus Plautius, invaded Britain with 40,000 heavily armed troops.
The German tribes destroyed three Roman legions in a ambush at the battle of Teuotborg Forest , That's the difference between a war and a campaign, the romans eventually lost. VALE ROMANES...

40 thou for a whole country with a supposed warrior culture is peanuts. When the Persians went for the Greeks the best modern estimates say 300000, the near contempory historians claimed over two million. Now that's overwhelming force, and they still got hammered.

in the war with Cathage both sides fielded armies of up to 3/4s of a million

Just at the battle of Alesia in Gaul, 60 thousand Romans against at least a 100000 Gauls, possibly a lot more and that was a single battle for the whole invasion of Gaul aux included 120 thousand on the Roman side and these readily replaced and reinforced from Italy and the Allied nations further north.

And most telling of all

invasion of Darcia about 200,000 Romans and Auxilaries , and that was after softening them up with a earlier invasion with 150 thousand, now that's what you call a invasion force when Rome was being serious!

i was referring to the opposition to raiding forces of a few hundred at most , chasing around from one beach to the next as fast as a mule could be led,

The Germans on land really did a job on the 3 legions with Herman egging them on before showing his true colours And by all accounts the Germans were much more poorly equipped than the Britons, mind after it they had plenty of Roman Atmy surplus although they did have a depressing tendency towards "killing" it and chucking them into the nearest bog.

atb

tom

Sorry was writing the above a I was settling down, this is better than Brain Training or starting sewing a new pair of Thorsberg trousers as me old ones are shall we say a trifle snug around the waist. If i don't ware them my linen tunic is so long it looks like Im cross dressing... and with that thought in your head, goodnight to you!

 

[Goatboy]

The Romans had a pretty easy landing on the south coast of England as they were invited in by one of the local rulers whos name escapes me at the moment. He saw it as a way to put his local enemies off and as a means to trade and make some money. So giving the Romans a pretty good foothold.
Again in 1066 the invading Normans didn't have that huge a force and were facing a more unified (though weakened) country.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

 

[dewi]

Now you're comparing field battles with a piece by piece invasion... totally different things.

40k of men did not take the whole of the British Isles from the get go... they fought a couple of minor skirmishes in the south east, setup a good solid base to work from, then got reinforced. It took them years to move from one area to another fighting tribes as they went, but 40k of men did not occupy Britain. They had an influx of troops and auxiliaries brought in to occupy defensive positions as well... totally different to the Persians fighting the Greeks, so the numbers there are irrelevant.

There are more people living in Manchester now than were in the entire country back then and with the distrust between the tribes, the Romans did commit significant numbers to squashing the people here. I still maintain that whether a legion was 5500 men or 2500 (and we know it was 5500 by the records kept by the Romans) that if a significant fighting force descended on any population in Britain back then, they would humiliate them.

You're not seriously suggesting that the Romans had to hold every square mile? Or even every 10 square miles for that matter. Like every invading force that has taken Britain, they would take key vantage point where they could see around for miles, build a workable fort and defend it. If there was an uprising or even talk of one, they could march where needed and according to Roman records, they would build defensive forts within a days march of each other.

Put into context, the Normans invaded Britain with between 10k to 15k of men. They had the advantage that there had already been an invasion in the north of around the same number of men, but still, the two added together comes to 30k of men used to invade a much heavier populated land with a more superior trained army waiting for them.

With reference to the Dacian wars you neglected to mention that the Dacian forces were 40k against the Romans 150k and 15k against the Romans 200k. The Romans were laying seige to established fortresses and were going up against heavily armed and trained soldiers. Again, totally different from the tribes of Britain who were neither heavily armed nor trained. Fierce maybe, but not really comparable to the Dacians.

 

[tombear]

Yup, it was the landing that nearly scuppered Ceasers earlier opportunist raid. Having someone invite you in makes it much eaier.

Because of the changed situation , a basically united country with a ruling group who didnt feel especially safe and who in the end made one monumentally lousy desicion the Norman just needed to cut off the head and take over. Ok there was some localised resistance but with the church backing the new regime once you had killed off the king and kept scattered any alternative it was much easier. It's not as if it hadn't happened recently before with the Danes chasing the Saxon king out of the country and slapping their own king on the throne, the Saxon nobility were quick enough to adjust and prosper then.

I'm not sure if it was luck or judgement but the Normans and their allies landing and basically aiming at the Godwinsons personal lands forced a knee jerk reaction from Harold so he rushed back after the battle up north when there was no good reason to, not in political terms, the whole saving your own people from rape and pillage thing aside, and took the Normans on with a far far smaller force than he could have . It's not as if the Norman army was going to get bigger like on say D Day when you had to kick them off the beech before they could ship in their huge reserves. One huge.y bad choice and we are being shouted at in French for 400 years!

A battle is a battle, the numbers where there to show what sort of resources could be marshalled by the ancients and the Romans in particular. 12 full legions (well at first they would have been up or near too full establishment) to invade Gaul .

40 odd thou seams to be the accepted maximum number of troops at any one time. I've never heard of any extras to hold ground after, just units to replace ones being with drawn because they were needed else where. The front line capacity just declined as they had to occupy land and cover their lines of communications. That's my whole point, the progress was slow because the force used wasn't big enough to do the job in the first place! Not because of some brilliant defence by the Briitons. It's precisely like what our lads had to endure in Afghanistan, what a Brigade sized unit to control a area the size of Wales. Even with helicopters and all the modern advantages it was a impossible position. They could win every fight but as soon as they had to move to another spot, back came the bad guys and the poppies that funded them. Numbers tell. Britain was a side show, simple as that. When needed there was a surge and the locals were quickly slapped down but as soon as the extra troops went they were bak in the old situation. Ok over time things did calm down and the time the Romans main force legged it everyone inside the walls so to speak was pretty happy with being Romanised and were hoping that they would come back toot sweet! On the wall there's plentry of evidence that some sort of garrisons, even if reduced and decidedly native in nature continued after the Romans left, they were still trying to defend what they had.

No I'm not seriously suggesting they had to hold every mile just illustrate how thin they were spread over a huge area. There's a very simple piece of maths, it pretty much applies to any occupation , In fact there's probably a real equation somewhere! maths is not my thing, I'm more into sweeping generalisations I'm told! The size of the force needed, in quality and absolute numbers is directly in relation to size and will ( and ability lets face it) to resist of the population and the physical size of the country. But until folk got to liking being Roman or the malcontents were worn down you would need extensive networks of garrisons, and they had to come from the original fighting force, there was no police force or paramilitary group to come in behind the lines. The Auxilaries were part of the frontline troops, only later on where they used as a border force. They were often used in preference to lead attacks, partly to preserve the legions and partly because they had special skills that the legions didnt have like the Batvian cavalry s ability to swim of all things! Ok when the wall came up (built pretty much exclusively by the legions) they were used as a border force but that's a different issue.

The Normans aims where totally different, just regime change and that could have almost been done by a raid, The thin spread of castles was as much to pay off the petty lords and wannabe lords as to actually occupy land. The size and number of actual Saxon resistance is telling , ok there were a few that needed forces collecting together and sorting out. The Normans were a tiny force compared to the whole population but foreign kings were nothing new, in fact to a Northumbrian a king from Wessex was a foreign king. The church siding with William was a telling fact, excommunication was a huge thing to the masses. Slowly the Saxon land owners were squeezed out and things became noticeably worse for tose on the bottom but by then it was too late. Once again if the will or need to resist ad been greater it couldn't have been done with the tiny force brought over.

Er, weren't the Romans in Britain up against heavily defended hill forts?, and a supposedly much larger armed force if spread into petty kingdoms? Although the Dacians were a more advanced set than the Britton, they didnt have a trained standing army as such did they, not like he Romans they were still tribal. Certainly apart from a few of the nobility they were as unarmoured as the Brittons so basically there advantages boil down to a sword with a bend in the end, a unified government and most tellingly a will to resist. The huge number of Romans shows both there commitment to this conquest ( Dacia was rich rich rich) and the opposition they expected. If Britain had been full of gold you don't think they would have sent a big enough force to take control quickly? They obviously could as they did elsewhere! The whole invasion of Britain was done without adequate forces to shore up A new emperors shaky political position by giving a relatively cheap victory. From that point on it was more a case of we are here already it would look bad if we legged it than any real desire. Ok they were getting stuff from the place and as resistance diminished and modern farming methods took over it became more worth keeping it. But in the end when the troops were needed at home it was hasta la vista babies, we are off, yeah, yeah we'll definitely be back...


Thats all for now, got a full day, kids still off school for two weeks so got to keep them entertained. Sad to say I'm rather grateful for this contact with real live adult humans!

ATB

Tom

 

[Old Bones]

This thread sounds like Romanists at a conference after about 5 pints...

The way the Roman Empire held Britannia is subject to constant debate, but it can be divided into several differnet bits. Firstly, the Celts were themselves invaders, and had a very complex tribal system, which involved obligations to not only regional leaders within their own tribe, but other tribal leaders as well. there is a document form early medival Ireland which lays out the situation there during the 7th century, and its complex enough! They also tended to fight a lot with each other. Again, the great Irish story 'The Cattle Raid of Coolee' tells the story of large scale cattle rustling as some sort of game/minor war. Evidence from the medival period of cattle raiding by Highland tribes against the Lowland Scots shows a similar pattern.

Because the hierarcy of Celtic society could be complex, when they came together to fight the Empire, they ultimately tended to loose. Caeser found that in Gaul - by the time they'd all stopped trying to be top dog, the Roman's had organised themselves, put in defences, bought off allies, etc.

And Celts likes Roman stuff. The BM has a load of stuff from Roman Europe which comes into Britain well before any Roman does. Those long range Celtic trading links were efficent, and if you regard Rome as just another very big and powerful tribe, then it might be worth doing deals. Especially if they could protect you from your enemies.

I wrote my PhD on Roman material in Scotland and Ireland, and in Scotland, I've argued that Rome used a mixture of policies, which almost certainly had been refined from use elsewhere. If my enemies enemy is my friend, then having the Roman Army around could be very useful. You dont have live on a hillfort if the Army is around to protect you. You'll get silver as payment for friendship, the chiefs kids get a nice Roman education, perhaps a nice new villa instead of that smoky roundhouse, and your wife gets to wear the very latest fashion. You can sell your grain etc for cash, perhaps to the Army, and if there is a couple of very bad harvest years, you could get emergency supplies for the Army granaries (who ship in enormous amounts of grain etc from around the Empire). There is new foods, new markets, roads, and silver money. The kids might even join the Army, or work for the local administration.

Outside the Empire, you can also see thats its not all about force. The Empire would rather seduce than use just fear, and violence is frankly a bit costly (legions suck up a huge amount of the Empires silver). Friendly border tribe? Thats cash in your pocket and access to Roman markets. Mortaria, Samian (if your posh), brooches and the like are all going to be popular. In Germany its a mixture of fear, cash, and the Army, but there are lovely Roman glasses vases found hundres of miles away from the frontier - so some one is getting either presents or is spending money. For Ireland and Scotland, I've argued that the problem is largely economics/threat.

Lowland Scotland is pretty good for growing stuff - thats means a surplus, and that means money to spend. They can do well out of the Roman economy, recycling the silver they get in subsidy, etc for nice things. Further north, there is a problem. The economy and tribal system is just too diffuse to allow that sort of economic self interest to take root. Its true that a fair smattering of Roman material is found, but much of it is on a trade route to Northern Ireland, or is in certain tribal centres. On the other hand, cattle raiding works for them, and Southern Scots make a good target. My theory is that the Antonine Wall was built to protect their Southern Allies, and the withdrawal back to Hadrian's wall was meant to be a sort of withdrawal on the grounds that the situation had stablised. EXcept that the Highlands messed up and attacked too early the lowland centres, such as the brochs, which meant the northern wall had to be reoccupied PDQ.

Ireland is an interesting one. There are only a couple of trade entry points, judging by fines, and its likely theese were held on to by a local chief, in the same way someone holds onto a franchise. Ireland was never really worth invading - not really wealthy enough to make it worth it, and no real threat. Northern SCotland had some of the threat (hence the legions), but probably not worth the hassle of wandering around the Highlands forever trying to kill everyone.

Empires dont just conquer, there just isn't enough troops to make it worth it for the long term. Much better to pay off, seduce, bring in and involve local leaders (think India). leave religious stuff alone as much as possible, dont diss the locals (which is how the Boudiccan uprising started), and only tax what you can get away with (ditto). Offer security and the nice things of life. And you dont even have to have an actual Empire. Think just how many countries have US bases, and have special trade status with the US. Or the Chinese now with huge investment in Africa, or the Russians during the 1960's.

Empires are like busineses - all of them change in the end, but its how you handle the takeover and how you run them that allows you to have a succesful one. The Celtic tribes were as clever as anyone - they handled a situation to their advantage, and when things changes, they changed with it. Did they end up Roman? Maybe, but better to think of the like we are today - looking to get the best out of life, and blending what influences we can to our best advantage.

I have to admit I've bought a 'what have the Roman's ever done for us' T-shirt, if only to hack off romantic Celticy types.

Thats all for now, got a full day, kids still off school for two weeks so got to keep them entertained. Sad to say I'm rather grateful for this contact with real live adult humans!

I know that feeling, and I've limited the Xbox 360 is a single hour a day....