Warlords: The Struggle for Power in Post-Roman Britain
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| |||||||||||||||
 Trade In this Item for up to £4.35
Get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade in Warlords: The Struggle for Power in Post-Roman Britain for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £4.35, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. 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
The centuries after the end of Roman control of Britain in AD 410 are some of the most vital in Britain's history - yet some of the least understood. "Warlords" brings to life a world of ambition, brutality and violence in a politically fragmented land, and provides a compelling new history of an age that would transform Britain. By comparing the archaeology against the available historical sources for the period, "Warlords" presents a coherent picture of the political and military machinations of the fifth and sixth centuries that laid the foundations of English and Welsh history. Included are the warring personalities of the local leaders and a look at the enigma of King Arthur. Some warlords sought power within the old Roman framework; some used an alternative British approach; and, others exploited the emerging Anglo-Saxon system - but for all warlords, the struggle was for power.
About the Author
Stuart Laycock studied Classics at Cambridge. He has worked as a writer, and as an aid worker in Bosnia and Kosovo. His particular combination of original research combined with first-hand experience of the dynamics of tribal conflict brings a unique perspective to this subject. He is also the author of Britannia: The Failed State, nominated for Book of the Year 2009 by Current Archaeology.
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
19 of 20 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
This book builds on Laycock's earlier "Britannia: the Failed State" which examined the evidence (mostly from archaeology) for the disunity of Britain before, during, and after the Roman occupation. "Warlords" concentrates on the last period, and in particular on certain leaders, combining the archaeology with written sources for post-Roman Britain. "Warlords" certainly has ideas and evidence worth thinking about. However, it is a less scholarly work than "Britannia", and Laycock goes further into the territory of speculation.
Laycock's central thesis is that there was no national Brittonic identity, but rather only tribal affiliations, and that there was no authority recognized above that of local kingdoms, based around one, or sometimes two, tribal areas / civitates. Ultimately, I was not convinced by his arguments. For example, the existence of memorial stones that name people by their tribe does not prove that there was no sense of Brittonic nationhood. All the relevant contemporary writers I can think of (Constantius, Gildas, Sidonius, Jordanes, Procopius) identify the Britons as a nation and many imply leadership of that nation by an individual (the proud tyrant, Ambrosius, Riothamus, an unnamed king) at least at certain times. Laycock's attempt to localize these individuals to particular tribes is hard to reconcile with what these authors wrote.
As an introduction to post-Roman Britain, "Warlords" is to be recommended above most popular books which concentrate on the doubtful figure of Arthur. However, to be picky, there are a few weak points:
1. Why should we believe that one civitas, Dumnonia, "was quite possibly capable of supplying and equipping twelve thousand men" under the leadership of Riothamus in Gaul, when Leslie Alcock (_Arthur's Britain_) doubts that any of the post-Roman states could have raised even one thousand men.
2. Laycock quotes Roger of Wendover for the relations between Ambrosius and Vortigern even though, as he admits, this is possibly more myth than history. I think this information clearly derives the pseudohistory of Geoffrey of Monmouth.
3. Laycock accuses Bede of "losing the plot" by "allotting Aelle all the territory south of the Humber" but of course Bede ascribes to Aelle only the same authority as he ascribes to the later Ethelbert. There is no reason that a king of Sussex and nearby districts could not have have been held in the same regard as a king of Kent.
So in summary: certainly worth reading, but Laycock's case is not as strong as he makes it out to be.
Laycock's central thesis is that there was no national Brittonic identity, but rather only tribal affiliations, and that there was no authority recognized above that of local kingdoms, based around one, or sometimes two, tribal areas / civitates. Ultimately, I was not convinced by his arguments. For example, the existence of memorial stones that name people by their tribe does not prove that there was no sense of Brittonic nationhood. All the relevant contemporary writers I can think of (Constantius, Gildas, Sidonius, Jordanes, Procopius) identify the Britons as a nation and many imply leadership of that nation by an individual (the proud tyrant, Ambrosius, Riothamus, an unnamed king) at least at certain times. Laycock's attempt to localize these individuals to particular tribes is hard to reconcile with what these authors wrote.
As an introduction to post-Roman Britain, "Warlords" is to be recommended above most popular books which concentrate on the doubtful figure of Arthur. However, to be picky, there are a few weak points:
1. Why should we believe that one civitas, Dumnonia, "was quite possibly capable of supplying and equipping twelve thousand men" under the leadership of Riothamus in Gaul, when Leslie Alcock (_Arthur's Britain_) doubts that any of the post-Roman states could have raised even one thousand men.
2. Laycock quotes Roger of Wendover for the relations between Ambrosius and Vortigern even though, as he admits, this is possibly more myth than history. I think this information clearly derives the pseudohistory of Geoffrey of Monmouth.
3. Laycock accuses Bede of "losing the plot" by "allotting Aelle all the territory south of the Humber" but of course Bede ascribes to Aelle only the same authority as he ascribes to the later Ethelbert. There is no reason that a king of Sussex and nearby districts could not have have been held in the same regard as a king of Kent.
So in summary: certainly worth reading, but Laycock's case is not as strong as he makes it out to be.
36 of 39 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
This seems to be Laycock building on the theories he put forward in his last book Britannia the Failed State about how Britain fragmented at the end of Roman Britain into kingdoms based on the British tribes, in a sort of Bosnia scenario. I thought the scenario he presented there was certainly one of the more convincing approaches to the end of Roman Britain and, judging by this book, it works reasonably well in terms of post-Roman Britain as well.
What Laycock does is look at Warlords, both British and Anglo-Saxon, in terms of their geographic background and sees how they could have interacted to create 5th and 6th century history. He uses text as well as archaeological evidence, to build his picture and it seems to work. He's also quite easy to read compared to some historians which is always a plus.
He's got in here the kind of people you'd expect like a bit on Arthur and a chapter on Ambrosius Aurelianus. But he's also got people you don't see so much about like Gerontius, a guy who conquered Spain just at the end of the Roman period. There's quite a fun bit on some Welsh warlords with some juicy details of private lives. He's also got some new theories on where people like Vortigern and Ambrosius might have been based and how they operated, and he's quite convincing on the way he sees the period as a battle between different kingdoms, not just between Britons and Anglo-Saxons.
What Laycock does is look at Warlords, both British and Anglo-Saxon, in terms of their geographic background and sees how they could have interacted to create 5th and 6th century history. He uses text as well as archaeological evidence, to build his picture and it seems to work. He's also quite easy to read compared to some historians which is always a plus.
He's got in here the kind of people you'd expect like a bit on Arthur and a chapter on Ambrosius Aurelianus. But he's also got people you don't see so much about like Gerontius, a guy who conquered Spain just at the end of the Roman period. There's quite a fun bit on some Welsh warlords with some juicy details of private lives. He's also got some new theories on where people like Vortigern and Ambrosius might have been based and how they operated, and he's quite convincing on the way he sees the period as a battle between different kingdoms, not just between Britons and Anglo-Saxons.
23 of 26 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
This book is refreshing because it dares to use written sources, and shows Post Roman Britons as something other than hapless victims. It also references some good archaeology, to include the author's belt buckle studies. But the book cannot give any clear-cut examples of its main contention: that the Britons retained their tribal hostilities over 400 years of Pax Romana, and then engaged in civil wars so intense that they somehow failed to notice the Saxon Conquest. This also requires that each British warlord be the leader of only one small tribal civitas. Vortigern becomes leader of just the Dobunni because of a very dubious genealogy; Ambrosius becomes an Atrebate simply because he's Vortigern's foe; Riothamus, the leader of a 12,000 man expedition to Gaul, becomes a ruler of sparsely populated Dumnonia because of later artifacts from Byzantium. But ironically, Gildas and Patrick, our best sources, never mention "tribal" affiliations; they call all Britons "citizens".
What is most puzzling in a book using written sources is the author's disregard of what Patrick, Gildas and others say was Britain's main danger: the sea-borne threat from Pict, Scot and Saxon. Also, while the book eagerly accepts Gildas' single mention of Saxon mercenaries as the key to Britain's fall, anything else Gildas says that happens to disagree with the author's hypothesis is labeled an "exaggeration."
This is sad, because much of the information the book presents actually confirms the written sources. The author's belt buckle study shows that Britain had plenty of local armed forces to defend herself after the break with Rome--and, as he acknowledges at one point, were probably better disciplined than the Saxons. British belt buckles from every corner of Britain found between Dorchester on Thames and Cirencester confirm just what Gildas says: Britons were being driven into the sea (i.e. Bristol Channel) in the 440's, but recovered in the 450's. Finally, the Germanic artifacts from the 450's in eastern Kent confirm that the first federates were intended to see off sea-borne foes--not putative British warlords at the other end of Kent.
No, it is not impossible that Britain was ridden with tribal wars after the break with Rome. But literally dozens of competing theories that also ignore Gildas' testimony could equally be true. It might thus be time for scholars to go back to square one. Re-examine every scrap of evidence--not just the archaeology--and then come up with some good hypotheses for what really happened when the Romans left.
What is most puzzling in a book using written sources is the author's disregard of what Patrick, Gildas and others say was Britain's main danger: the sea-borne threat from Pict, Scot and Saxon. Also, while the book eagerly accepts Gildas' single mention of Saxon mercenaries as the key to Britain's fall, anything else Gildas says that happens to disagree with the author's hypothesis is labeled an "exaggeration."
This is sad, because much of the information the book presents actually confirms the written sources. The author's belt buckle study shows that Britain had plenty of local armed forces to defend herself after the break with Rome--and, as he acknowledges at one point, were probably better disciplined than the Saxons. British belt buckles from every corner of Britain found between Dorchester on Thames and Cirencester confirm just what Gildas says: Britons were being driven into the sea (i.e. Bristol Channel) in the 440's, but recovered in the 450's. Finally, the Germanic artifacts from the 450's in eastern Kent confirm that the first federates were intended to see off sea-borne foes--not putative British warlords at the other end of Kent.
No, it is not impossible that Britain was ridden with tribal wars after the break with Rome. But literally dozens of competing theories that also ignore Gildas' testimony could equally be true. It might thus be time for scholars to go back to square one. Re-examine every scrap of evidence--not just the archaeology--and then come up with some good hypotheses for what really happened when the Romans left.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
Disappointing
As a non 'expert' I hesitated to enter a review but as I had high hopes for this work I thought I could add a few words for fellow non academics. Read more
Published 12 days ago by IanW
ironclad
warlords the struggle for power in post roman britain stuart layock some things familiar to any reader of a Arthurian novel good on detail and heavy on sources form gildas not... Read more
Published 1 month ago by mark1000
Readable propagandist romp with free health warning
Like `The Failed State' Warlords is quite a page-turner. Written to entertain, it succeeds. For all that its thesis is no less tendentious, or objectionable, than before, and if... Read more
Published on 5 April 2010 by Angeln
too speculative - he even admits that he's trying to provide England...
I thought Laycock's Failed State book was fascinating and I recommend it. Warlords is building on that previous work by collating various scraps of literary evidence - but Failed... Read more
Published on 19 Aug 2009 by Tdi Edwards
Carving Up Roman Britain
Laycock's archaeological knowledge is evident and his sources provide a fascinating insight into 5th Century history. Read more
Published on 22 Jun 2009 by K. Wildman
Realms of speculation?
A natural follow on from his Britannia - The Failed State: Tribal Conflict and the End of Roman Britain, Laycock attempts to trace the development of the mini-kingdoms into which... Read more
Published on 29 May 2009 by E. L. Wisty
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
- Books > History > Britain & Ireland > Ireland
- 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.
|
