Guest spartacus Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 The Romans were here for some 3-400 years then pulled out rather quickly apparently due to Legions being required elsewhere! They had been here for so long and built some fine buildings, it does not quite "fit" that they were just needed elsewhere! I think there may be other reasons for there withdrawal! What reasons I am unsure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scanderbeg Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Roman power was dwindeling. They simply could not maintain the territory anymore. It's not just that the legions were needed. It was that there was just too much pressure to worry about an island thats not really giving you much. I don't find the mystery in it. They just could not hold the province there anymore. Roman power did come back to a small extent a few years later but it was brief and small. The west was plaugued by too many different problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 You say there was little here - there must have been something, hence 400 years of occupation! What pressure ?? No, I need better reasons than that ! I am not convinced, sorry ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 You are not convinced that Vandals, Huns, Goths, etc. were overrunning the western empire? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scanderbeg Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Internal instability military weakening Problematic Emperors Germanic invasions ....... The list could go on. The point of the conquest of Britannia was to Romanize the Celts there. Caludius's idea of conquest was probably first thought up as a political move. he needed to get popular with the senate and public and what better way to do it then to conquer the Britons. In terms of riches, there was not much to be sought. However the future idea of having a large Romanized civilization there was what drove them. Not to mention a great recruiting ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 OK guys I know all that it just seems to me to be such of huge waste of time and resources thats all, They continually had pressure for centuries, so I just feel there is more to it, thats all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demson Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Conquering Britannia was more then a political move. The mineral wealth of Britannia must have played part in the conquest. Iron for the legions, tin for the taxable commerce and gold for the Emperor's coins. Futhermore, Britannia was the spiritual and religious centre of the Celtic world. It was a threat to the authorian regime of the Empire and in Gaul in particular. The Celtic Britons as a military threat is not to be underestimated either. If I were an Roman emperor, I would make sure such a threat was not left alone to prosper at my backdoor. As it was the most isolated and remote province of the Roman Empire, Britannia had always been very unrestful. The Romans were pretty succesful as keeping them subdued though. However, when the Germanics came knocking at their door, they had to cut their loss and decided to begin with dumping Britain. It's always rainy there anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Southern Britain was actually a model province. The north, however, is where most of the touble came from. When empire's collapse, the most distant outposts are the usually the first to go. Cut your losses, shorten your supply lines, hunker down in your bunker, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnewhous Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Do you mean athoritarian regime? The model citizens of the south moved to Wales and built a wall when the Anglo-Saxons started invading, did they not? The Republic and the empire were always beset by nomadic barbarians thoughout their history. The empire fell because the number of people willing to die for its preservation had dwindled. Great Britain was the backwater of the empire. England was the weakest of the European successor states until the 15th century under Elizabeth I turned it into a world power. In fact, it could be argued that all the territorial acquisitions made in western Europe from Julius Caesar onwards weren't worth the cost in support. The Eastern Empire survived because there was enough tax revenue to pay mercenaries for defense after Adrianople. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 13, 2005 Report Share Posted March 13, 2005 Some informative replies there chaps! Demson, you appear to be into the celtic world so a question for you ! Have you visited the Isle of Anglesey? My family and I regulary visit and the Isle is full of Celtic remains Stone circles, burial chambers etc I know the Romans were deeply threatened by the Druid Priests, so much so they crossed the treacherous Menai Straits to get on Anglesey where they hunted down the Priests and killed them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeke Posted March 13, 2005 Report Share Posted March 13, 2005 Don't forget their was alot of marble in Cambria (Whales) and also alot of iron. Zeke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demson Posted March 13, 2005 Report Share Posted March 13, 2005 Athoritarian regime, yes. I'm not sure it is an appropiate description. Anyway, a free Britannia would be a threat to the authority of Rome. That's what I'm trying to say. I haven't been to the Isle of Anglesey. It sounds like an interesting place, but I really don't have the money for much sightseeing I'm an I-net pauper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Another topic I found as i explored this forum's backstory!! The end of Roman rule in Britannia is interesting and i think the view of historians has changed in recent decades. I recall childrens' history books from my youth that had pictures of Roamn legionaries filing down to the docks in their lorica segmentatae, pila in hand; or Roman soldiers kissing farewell to their loved ones as they went off to defend the City of rome (about to fall to the Vandals of course) in 410. We now know better - by C400 the legions, their organisation and equipment had changed. And there was no dramatic pull out - like the British quitting India, or the US Vietnam. Legions and troops of various kinds went off with pretenders from Constantine onwars - probably lastly Magnus Maximus c 383, and a later "Emperor" Constantine III, but there were probably still locally based soldiers on the Wall and elsewhere. These were often Frisians or germans imported from Europe. It also seems that it may not have been the Empire that withdrew, but the Romano-British who threw out the imperial administrators - then appointed emperors of their own. Later Aurelius Ambrosius would be said to have had parents who had "worn the purple" - does anyone have any views on what that meant. To me the possibilities include (but are not restricted to): descent from Constantine I; relationship to Maximus (though it would seem Vortigern may have been his son-in-law); or a relationship to one of the last emperors created in Britain c 400-410. I have also seen the argument that the phrase could mean simply that he was true born Roman; or that his parents had been leading members of the tribal aristocracy. Personally, perhaps romantically, I rather favour one of the earlier options. I see the end of Roman Britain as a slow process too - extending (at least in the western parts of the promise) over 100 years or so, and including the liftime of that celebrated warrior, Arthur. What do others think? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 The phrase "not with a bang but a whimper" is probably accurate. Im re-reading Salway (Oxford Roman History) , and the relative stability of Brittannia to Continental Gaul is very striking, indeed the suggestion is that much wealth may have fled to Britain because of the conflict in the Imperium Galliensus ( not just at that time but I mention its existence as a signifier of trends) . The tendency of Britain to produce "candidates " for the Imperium remote from Rome is also notable . The evidence of the built environment also suggests greater wealth and stability than in Gaul. Geta may not have been everyones favourite but Britain enjoyed lengthy peace from his time onwards, by the time of Aurelian after one or two violent glitches Britain was again stabilised -the instability all seeming to be from competition for the Purple. An ebbing away into sullen poverty is my supporting statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longbow Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 It was that there was just too much pressure to worry about an island thats not really giving you much. I don't find the mystery in it. I think theres a bit more to it than that,London was one of the great trading centre's,it was one of the richest cities north of the Alps and had a population of 50,000 (2nd Century).I think Britania wasnt only about Military prestige it was allso a valuable province to the Romans. When Saxons started to raid the Romans expanded the Classis Britannica and built a series of Forts all along the south east coast,they wouldnt have done that if the Island wasnt valuable to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.