| ||||||||||||
 Trade In this Item for up to £4.20
Trade in Britannia - The Failed State: Tribal Conflict and the End of Roman Britain for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £4.20, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Plus, get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Product Description
'Nominated for Current Archaeology Book of the Year' Efforts to understand how Roman Britain ends and Anglo-Saxon England begins have been undermined by the division of studies into pre-Roman, Roman and early medieval periods. This groundbreaking new study traces the history of British tribes and British tribal rivalries from the pre-Roman period, through the Roman period and into the post-Roman period. It shows how tribal conflict was central to the arrival of Roman power in Britain and how tribal identities persisted through the Roman period and were a factor in the three great convulsions that struck Britain during the Roman centuries. It explores how tribal conflicts may have played a major role in the end of Roman Britain, creating a failed state scenario akin in some ways to those seen recently in Bosnia and Iraq, and brought about the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. Finally, it considers how British tribal territories and British tribal conflicts can be understood as the direct predecessors of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and Anglo-Saxon conflicts that form the basis of early English history.
About the Author
Stuart Laycock has an MA in Classics from Jesus College, Cambridge. Since leaving Cambridge he has worked as a writer in advertising and television, but during the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo took time out to work as an aid worker there. His particular combination of original research on the end of Roman Britain combined with first-hand experience of the dynamics and consequences of tribal and ethnic conflict is perhaps unique.
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
30 of 32 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
Too long the history of sub-Roman Britain has relied too much on doubtful small snippets of written evidence, often from authors on the other side of Europe writing over a century after the events described, which too many people have accepted at face value. Really the only thing we can rely on for sure is the evidence from archaeology.
Laycock presents here a thesis, which he attempts to back up from the archaeological evidence, that the tribal kingdoms of pre-Roman Britain retained their boundaries, their identity and their accompanying tribal hatreds, throughout the Roman period. Despite the Roman administration, the province never became unified. Many of the "barbarian attacks" of the Roman period may actually have been in effect civil wars between rival tribes. Furthermore, he asserts, these tribal mini-states formed the nuclei for the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Each brought in various Germanic tribes from the continent as foederati to fight for them against their immediate neighbours, as opposed to the standard historical model in which they were intended to fight against outside invaders such as Picts and Irish. Subsequently these Germans, either peacefully or by coup d'etat, took over the leadership of the mini-states and turned them into kingdoms. The spread of the Anglo-Saxons as indicated by archaeology has always seemed far too rapid to me compared to the standard historical model based on the written sources, and such a scenario as posited here with geographically widespread Anglo-Saxon immigration right from the start seems more consistent. (There's even serious discussion these days about the possibility that some of the peoples of south-eastern pre-Roman Britain were Germanic speakers rather than Brythonic speakers. See for example The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story.)
I would say that Laycock's thesis is highly plausible, more plausible than many other scenarios presented by historians and archaeologists, but not quite enough evidence to be totally convincing. Like much archaeology and history writing, there is plenty of phraseology used of the form "we may suppose that" or "there is no reason to doubt that" as a prelude to certain conclusions. We may have to wait to see what further archaeological evidence build up in future.
Certainly a valuable contribution to the history of pre-Roman, Roman and post-Roman Britain, and recommended reading.
(Update 30/5/09: Laycock has since followed up this work with Warlords: The Struggle for Power in Post-Roman Britain.)
Laycock presents here a thesis, which he attempts to back up from the archaeological evidence, that the tribal kingdoms of pre-Roman Britain retained their boundaries, their identity and their accompanying tribal hatreds, throughout the Roman period. Despite the Roman administration, the province never became unified. Many of the "barbarian attacks" of the Roman period may actually have been in effect civil wars between rival tribes. Furthermore, he asserts, these tribal mini-states formed the nuclei for the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Each brought in various Germanic tribes from the continent as foederati to fight for them against their immediate neighbours, as opposed to the standard historical model in which they were intended to fight against outside invaders such as Picts and Irish. Subsequently these Germans, either peacefully or by coup d'etat, took over the leadership of the mini-states and turned them into kingdoms. The spread of the Anglo-Saxons as indicated by archaeology has always seemed far too rapid to me compared to the standard historical model based on the written sources, and such a scenario as posited here with geographically widespread Anglo-Saxon immigration right from the start seems more consistent. (There's even serious discussion these days about the possibility that some of the peoples of south-eastern pre-Roman Britain were Germanic speakers rather than Brythonic speakers. See for example The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story.)
I would say that Laycock's thesis is highly plausible, more plausible than many other scenarios presented by historians and archaeologists, but not quite enough evidence to be totally convincing. Like much archaeology and history writing, there is plenty of phraseology used of the form "we may suppose that" or "there is no reason to doubt that" as a prelude to certain conclusions. We may have to wait to see what further archaeological evidence build up in future.
Certainly a valuable contribution to the history of pre-Roman, Roman and post-Roman Britain, and recommended reading.
(Update 30/5/09: Laycock has since followed up this work with Warlords: The Struggle for Power in Post-Roman Britain.)
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
I feel nervous about writing a review of this book since I came to it as a very general reader with no knowledge of the period beyond that of a layman. I was fascinated by what happened when the Roman period in Britain ended, and was rewarded with a really interesting set of ideas which my simple understanding summarises as follows. Our understanding of history has been seriously warped by the 20th century experience of two world wars (plus, I would add, our highly selective memory of our military history as consisting of decisive battles such as Waterloo or Trafalgar). Laycock's argument is that this is fundamentally misleading and the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and in Iraq/Afghanistan in the last decade are much more informative. His hypothesis is that the tribes who occupy the islands we now know as Britain were likely forming shifting alliances, of which the introduction of the Romans was just one more example. He argues this tribal system was deep-rooted and people still thought of themselves as from their tribe first and from Roman Britannia second - hence the title, "Britannia: The Failed State". When external pressures emerged in the fourth century (and even earlier) the long-standing tribal system started to come to the fore again. Laycock argues this system is the most likely successor to Roman government of these islands.
There's a lot more to it than that, but this put things in a new light for me (my previous knowledge having been based on half-remembered school lessons and history documentaries on TV). The problem for me as a general reader is that there is probably an interesting 20 to 30 page article in here. However, Laycock is writing to persuade a more specialist audience so to support his case he adds in a lot of evidence to support his hypothesis (total length 250 pages). I'm really not the best person to comment on this but as a layperson I felt these sections of the book pretty heavy going and it wasn't too long before I was skipping ahead to the next chapter.
I did enjoy the bits I understood, but I hope in future Laycock gets an opportunity to put forward his ideas from a popular platform - a bit of the Michael Wood treatment on TV! There you go, now all you real historians can vote my review "unhelpful"!
There's a lot more to it than that, but this put things in a new light for me (my previous knowledge having been based on half-remembered school lessons and history documentaries on TV). The problem for me as a general reader is that there is probably an interesting 20 to 30 page article in here. However, Laycock is writing to persuade a more specialist audience so to support his case he adds in a lot of evidence to support his hypothesis (total length 250 pages). I'm really not the best person to comment on this but as a layperson I felt these sections of the book pretty heavy going and it wasn't too long before I was skipping ahead to the next chapter.
I did enjoy the bits I understood, but I hope in future Laycock gets an opportunity to put forward his ideas from a popular platform - a bit of the Michael Wood treatment on TV! There you go, now all you real historians can vote my review "unhelpful"!
14 of 15 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
This is a well told revisionist version of how the Romans and the Saxons actually took over Britain. The Britons hated the tribe next door more than the overseas newcomers, and invited in the Romans and Saxons to help them in their local rivalries. The Romans were happy to perpetuate and rule through the tribes, and the defensive works of later Roman Britain reflect inter tribal violence, being mostly on tribal borders rather than against external marauders. After the Romans had gone, the tribal kingdoms reasserted their political independence, in a process the author usefully compares to the revival of local nationalisms in late 20th century eastern Europe and Africa. The tribal kings then called in the Saxons as hired swords and settled them on disputed tribal borders, and in due course the Saxons took over the tribal kingdoms more or less intact as the starting point for their own disunited kingdoms - the Heptarchy.
The argument is credible and persuasive. Both Caesar and Gildas commented on the Britons' disunion, and the author shows how the defensive and military archaeology matches the tribal geography. The Catuvellauni in particular made enemies of everyone around as they tried to push out from their territories north of the Thames. Boadicea's Iceni tribe burned London and St Albans in AD 61 not simply because they hated new towns but because they hated Catuvellauni towns. For the Romans the province was routinely treated as a PR opportunity or a launchpad to take over the rest of the empire. The Britons always thought in tribal terms - they had no idea a United Kingdom would come along over a thousand years later. The barbarians in other Roman provinces were strong enough to stop this sort of balkanisation when the western Empire fell, but the Saxons in Britain were not strong or united enough to do the same for another five hundred years.
So why only four stars. Well the author could have tried harder to fill in the historical gaps in the Roman period : how far did the Romans treat Britannia as an entity ; did the later Roman "sub provinces" match the tribal borders ; what was the impact of the large permanent Roman military presence upon the tribes ; did the local aristocracy view themselves as British ? What part in all this was played by the Christian church, and why did it vanish ? Also the author rightly complains of the poor historical record, so it is surprising that he feels able repeatedly to contradict or ignore Tacitus who is the best historian that we do have - his father in law had governed Britannia for eight years soon after Boadicea's revolt. Tacitus is clear and plausible for example on the causes of Boadicea's revolt (greedy and overbearing Romans), he does detail the British atrocities (including crucifixions - presumably picked up from the Romans) and he is also clear that it was Boadicea who attacked the Romans in the final battle (with or without a stirring speech first). However, these lapses do not undermine the book's central point.
Finally, as the author says, several of the tribal kingdoms survive to this day, as Sussex, Kent and Essex for instance. So when these counties clash at cricket, they are prolonging a two thousand year old struggle.
The argument is credible and persuasive. Both Caesar and Gildas commented on the Britons' disunion, and the author shows how the defensive and military archaeology matches the tribal geography. The Catuvellauni in particular made enemies of everyone around as they tried to push out from their territories north of the Thames. Boadicea's Iceni tribe burned London and St Albans in AD 61 not simply because they hated new towns but because they hated Catuvellauni towns. For the Romans the province was routinely treated as a PR opportunity or a launchpad to take over the rest of the empire. The Britons always thought in tribal terms - they had no idea a United Kingdom would come along over a thousand years later. The barbarians in other Roman provinces were strong enough to stop this sort of balkanisation when the western Empire fell, but the Saxons in Britain were not strong or united enough to do the same for another five hundred years.
So why only four stars. Well the author could have tried harder to fill in the historical gaps in the Roman period : how far did the Romans treat Britannia as an entity ; did the later Roman "sub provinces" match the tribal borders ; what was the impact of the large permanent Roman military presence upon the tribes ; did the local aristocracy view themselves as British ? What part in all this was played by the Christian church, and why did it vanish ? Also the author rightly complains of the poor historical record, so it is surprising that he feels able repeatedly to contradict or ignore Tacitus who is the best historian that we do have - his father in law had governed Britannia for eight years soon after Boadicea's revolt. Tacitus is clear and plausible for example on the causes of Boadicea's revolt (greedy and overbearing Romans), he does detail the British atrocities (including crucifixions - presumably picked up from the Romans) and he is also clear that it was Boadicea who attacked the Romans in the final battle (with or without a stirring speech first). However, these lapses do not undermine the book's central point.
Finally, as the author says, several of the tribal kingdoms survive to this day, as Sussex, Kent and Essex for instance. So when these counties clash at cricket, they are prolonging a two thousand year old struggle.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
Food for thought and argument
The book is generally well written, and appropriately illustrated; the version of history championed by the author is skilfully presented, though the flow of the later chapters is... Read more
Published 6 months ago by TR
Highly persuasive, but perhaps not iconoclastic enough?
Without reiterating points made by prior reviewers (C Hindmarch's is a very fair analysis), there are a couple of points I'd like to raise. Read more
Published 16 months ago by BarryT
Engaging, not quite convincing
Laycock's book is a very engaging read, but the basic problem with the book is demonstrated by a sentence on p. Read more
Published 18 months ago by KDS
A fine book, stay with it and you'll make mental progress
Stuart Laycock's book is not making such an outrageous claim about Britannia 400-600AD at all. Rather the historical model presented is common sense and a single step from those... Read more
Published 19 months ago by H. Julian
Thought-provoking
I enjoyed this book; it made me think much more about the importance of tribal identities, not just the obvious significance in pre-Roman Britain but the continued importance in... Read more
Published 24 months ago by Anthony K. Divey
An emerging Insular identity
History is usually defined by the age you live in and it's refreshing to read this new interpretation of early post Roman British history in the context of our times. Read more
Published on 12 April 2010 by Mr. Diarmid I. Macaulay
Very Interesting
If you are interested in this area of history you'll like this book. Stuart Laycock's ideas about the different tribal identities in Britain and how their relationship with each... Read more
Published on 27 Jun 2009 by Feste
Useful Narrative On Late Roman England
The Failed State is a narrative discussion of the collapse of the British tribal system in the late Roman and early post-Roman era. Read more
Published on 31 Mar 2009 by MLA
Intertribal relations - combined in a single book
The book is a necessary overview and makes a very good attempt to bring the subject matter closer to the modern reader. Read more
Published on 18 Mar 2009 by Jaka Jarc
Definitive
By the standards of archaeology and history, it's easy to read and it comes up with new approaches on some of the main questions about Roman Britain that make a lot of sense. Read more
Published on 23 Jan 2009 by Mrs. Julia Guerra
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
- Books > History > Ancient History & Civilisation > Rome
- Books > History > Britain & Ireland > Ireland
- Books > History > Europe > Pre-500
- Books > History > World History
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
