Customer Reviews

Unroman Britain

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I`ve read the reviews and the book too and my opinion is quite different. The book is a logical piece in Laycock`s books on how Britain fell into pieces along the lines of the tribal areas. Tribalism was strong throughout the roman period which is how this was possible. If tribalism was so strong then Britain can`t really have been very Roman, which is where this book fits into the set, but this whole myth the book promises to expose is not a myth, at least not in 2010. This argument that Roman Britain wasn`t so Roman at all is hardly new. Richard Reece came up with this more than 20 years ago and if you`ve read Mattingly`s excellent `An Imperial Possession, Britain in the Roman Empire`(2006), you`ll be surprised what this whole `wow, Laycock and Russell got it right` enthusiasm is about. Mattingly`s book is a difficult read, but you can find all the `most people lived in round houses`, `urbanism was a failure` etc. mantra there.

It`s interesting to note how the coin legend `RSR` `Satrunian Age returns` is interpreted as a message to the British subjects of Carausius (p.151). The legend I.N.P.C.D.A. (deciphered by Bedoyere) is somehow left out of the book. It stands for `Iam Nova Progenies Caelo Demittitur Alto` `now a generation is let down from heaven above`. My point is that since these are from Vergil`s Eclogue IV, I wonder how these unroman guys were able to understand the message? I can`t picture a Celtic-British lad reading Virgil in front of his round house. Unless you had proper Latin education these letters on the coins meant nothing to you and then of course the question `Who were these messages for?` springs to mind. Probably not the round house dwellers and if not then how can these coins lead you to the conclusion that Carausius was a British ruler? I wanted to check the very rare coins the book mentions, but there are no footnotes. Improper footnoting is a problem throughout the book. The argument is heavily weighted on the section on `non-villa` sites (pp. 119-129) referring to finds of several excavations without a single footnote. I`m sure what they conclude is correct, but if this is meant to be a kind of academic piece there should be footnotes, or a bibliography for each chapter.

But most of this is probably not so important for those who meet Roman Britain for the first time. The book is easy to follow, beautifully illustrated which is forward looking and the general reader will find it very interesting. A perfect present for sb who is interested in Roman history.

Miles Russell (Bloodline: The Celtic Kings of Roman Britain) and Stuart Laycock (Britannia - The Failed State: Tribal Conflict and the End of Roman Britain & Warlords: The Struggle for Power in Post-Roman Britain) have joined forces here in a new work. Whereas their previous works are rather more for the specialist and enthusiastic amateur, this volume appears to be aimed a little more towards the general reader, with the text appealing less to detailed technical argument and also incorporating more photographs and reconstruction illustrations.

Russell & Laycock argue that the Roman province of Britannia was far less Romanised than is commonly regarded. The "sexy" history which we always hear about concentrates entirely on the few; but villas for example should really be compared to grand 18th century stately homes, hardly representative of the majority of Britons who were still living in poky Iron Age roundhouses. The masses were unwilling participants in all this who took the opportunity to throw off Roman governance and indeed all the trappings of Roman civilisation during the troubles of the early fifth century. The ideas of Laycock's earlier works are incorporated and reiterated here, namely that the tribal rivalries of Iron Age Britain were never fully suppressed during the Roman period and resurfaced again at this time, and that archaeological analysis of military style belt buckles apparently entering civilian use suggests the rise of militias to replace the regular army.

This contention of a rejection of Rome requires an accompanying argument of how a large part of Britain became Anglicised thereafter - for if Britain defied permanent Romanisation over four centuries and was rapidly de-Romanised, how could Anglo-Saxon culture take over so quickly and easily and permanently? This was one of my criticisms of Jones' otherwise excellent The End of Roman Britain which also argued for rejection of Roman civilisation at this time but ignored this question. Russell and Laycock at least understand and acknowledge this problem, but I'm not sure that they resolve it here however. (See also Snyder's An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons, AD 400-600 and Faulkner's The Decline and Fall of Roman Britain for other works arguing similarly for an active throwing off of Roman governance.)

Nevertheless this is a great book, beginning to redress the balance of our views on Roman Britain. Thank you Miles and Stuart, and more power to your pens.

As a avid reader of history books, the best books are always ones like this which fire up your imagination and pose more questions that answers. Despite my initial misgivings whereby Laycock and Russell compare the Roman conquest of Britain to the recent attempts to bring "democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan, this book makes the argument that Roman culture was never fully embraced in Britannia and that the tribal / Celtic culture endured long enough to enable the Saxon and other European invaders who settled from the 5th Century onwards to be more readily absorbed as their own culture was not so far removed from these later conquerors. Indeed, the now acknowledged notion that the Saxons did not enthinically cleanse the Britona but rather the two cultures tended to merge forms the conclusion of this book after making refrence to the historian Gildas.

However, this book is at it's best when considering the fate of the colony during the second half of Rome's occupation. One of the most fascinating aspects was the fact that Britannia seemed to be a hotbed of political rebellion which the fact that the large military presence needed to control the province led to governors being appointed who frequently had Imperial ambitions. Whilst the story of Constantine's departure from York to become Emperor is well known, this was not the first occasion that Britannia's military might had venture into Europe. For instance, I never appreciated that the British commander Clodius Albinus had invaded Gaul with a 150,000 strong army only to be defeated by the Emperor Septimus Severus outside Lyons, a "Roman" city with which I am very familiar. This book cotinues to explore the rebellious nature of Britannia and how the colony even became part of an alternative Empire that opposed Rome. Backing the records up with archaeological evidence, an unfamiliar story of Rome's involvement emerges and I was gripped by the narrative which went well beyond the usual accounts of Boudicca, the constructions of villas and Hadrian's wall which is the usual stereotype historians fall back on for this era.

Whilst this is a relatively slim volume, the information is very densely packed and the authors present a lot of information to take in. Granted that there isn't a great deal of recorded information about this era, the account presented by the authors covers a wide range of topis from religion, construction, industry and the rise and fall of urban development prior to the departure of the Romans in 410. It was staggering to discover too that how a change in dress sense is evident from the discovery of belt buckles and why this might suggest an increased militarisation of the country that reflects the increasing political instability as the period progressed. The authors point out that the life styles of the Romano-British is almost certainly under-represented in the archaeological record and that a truer picture of this era may have been of a pioneer, frontier country where the trappings of the Imperial conquest were perhaps embraced only tentatively.

In summary, this is a difficult book to put down and one which is lavishly illustrated with some very impressive photographs and drawings. Although it will always remain impossible to verify the argument that is presented in this book, it is a hugely attractive vision. All too often, our preception of the Romans in Britain is over-simplified and I feel this book goes a very long way in presenting an alternative which seems to me to be far more credible. I think that this book's strength is also indicative of the fact that these arguments now need to be looked at in the far broader context of the Roman Empire to establish whether the circumstances described within were not unique to Britannia but perhaps also applicable elsewhere. Thoroughly recommended.

This is a great book with very interesting insights. Obviously history shows that Britain wasn't entirely conquered by the Romans and that 'unconquering' took them 400 years. If you have an interest in Roman Britain (or not as the book suggests) this will make a great addition to your collection! Well worth the money.

It covers all aspects of Britain throughout the Roman period from Caesars attempts to invade to the invasion of AD43. It also gives examples of which areas of the country took on Roman life and areas that didn't and certain tribal areas defiance to the worlds largest empire.

It also shows that Britain wasn't the backward civilisation that most believed it to be before the arrival of the Romans. An excellent book and a great addition to any collection of books of the era!

This is that rare thing--a serious academic argument presented in a clear, enjoyable way. Laycock and Russell have managed to produce a well-documented book that is far above other studies in this field. The idea that Britain was a kind of frontier zone where romanitas never quite caught on is presented in a logical way, backed up by considerable evidence. They do the same in demonstrating that post-Roman contacts between Briton and Saxon were probably stronger than many scholars have allowed. They make a plausible case that Britain really was rather UnRoman.

Two caveats however. The first is that, while they rightly call for greater use of our best source, Gildas, they do not really address his explanation for Britain's post-Roman decline: raiding by barbarian sea marauders. Yet raids by the later Vikings wrought almost as much damage on England and Carolingian Europe as the decline we see in Britain's archaeology post-410. The Latinity of the Age of Bede nearly disappeared. Moreover, since Gildas indicates that this raiding lasted for forty years, this would fully explain why Gaul and other western areas stayed much more Roman. The Romans--or federates maintaining a Roman-style peace--came back after 410, and stayed for quite a while longer.

The second caveat is: given that Britain was UnRoman, what kind of culture did it then have? It took a full two centuries for most of what is now England to fall under Saxon control. If Britain was so culturally demoralized--after successfully resisting Roman acculturation for 400 years--how was it able to hang on to so much for so long after 410? The ASC speaks of many fierce contests between Briton and Saxon, some of which, as at Salisbury and Wyrtgeornsburg (Bradford-on-Avon), appear to be British counterattacks. This, combined with Gildas' Old Testament template, suggests Britons possessed a rather robust ideology that could mobilize significant resources for war. Indeed, one might make a good case that forceful British resistance actually facilitated `Germanisation' by the 100,000 incomers. A much more rapid takeover by such a small immigrant population would have produced something closer to Frankish Gaul.

Russell and Laycock have made a good case for an UnRoman Britain. But to be fair to the Britons, would the fact that in two centuries the English permanently lost ALL of their country to Northmen from Denmark and Normandy mean that we must now speak of an 'UnEnglish' Anglo-Saxon England?

In this well written, lavishly illustrated and easy to read book, the authors argue that Romanitas was only taken up by a small fraction of the population of Britain from the first to the fifth centuries. The well-preserved archaeological record left by that small fraction in their military, urban and villa footprint belies the fact that the majority of the population continued to live in roundhouses. The majority enjoyed a life little touched by Tacitus' trappings of the Roman life style: "...vice, the lounge, the bath and the elegant banquet."

Why did the "Romaness" of the prior 350+ years wash off so fast once the Romans left Britain to her own devices? How did the Anglo-Saxons seemingly take over so completely? Why doesn't Britain speak a Romance language today?

The central concept of the book is that the tribal divisions existing amongst the British when the Romans first occupied the country never really went away. Thus, when Rome pulled out, this tribalism easily re-emerged - it had never disappeared.

A very provocative interpretation presented in plain language for the general reader. See also Britannia - The Failed State: Tribal Conflict and the End of Roman Britain, Warlords: The Struggle for Power in Post-Roman Britain and Roman Sussex.