Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
17 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Highly stimulating - recommended, 8 July 2008
I very much enjoyed this book- the central premise is that the tribal system that pre-dated the Roman invasion began to re-asserted itself after the legions left.
It draws very stimulating parallels with the post-Tito Balkans where Bosnian/ Serbian / Albanian/ Slovenian ethnic rivalries similarly re-emerged after decades of Yugoslav rule.
The analysis of brooch types- potentially identifying tribal/ ethnic groupings- was new to me- and convincing. It also made sense of some of the obscurer parts of Gildas on the entry of the Saxons.
Very much recommended for those interested in how Britannia changed from a Roman province to the Anglo-Saxon/ Romano-British kingdoms- well-written as well.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Highly plausible, not quite convincing, 13 Oct 2008
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.)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Disunited Kingdoms, 25 May 2009
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Stuart Laycock
by Peter Marren
by Roger White
by Gildas
With an Amazon.co.uk Gift Certificate, you can get them what they want (even if you don't know what that is). 
