P.Clodius Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Nice little BBC article on York Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Nice little BBC article on York I have a gallery covering Eboracum in the Gallery section,I would like to point out that the Vikings were responsible for heavy de-population of the city, after its great period of wealth via continental trade (jet to Mainz and other produce to Trier, with attested items from these continental sources retrived in the City).There sems to be a very PC element about the BBcs coverage of the "transition" to Norse suzerainty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princeps Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 One thing I've been wondering about Viking invasions - why was there so little resistance? Vikings were fierce to be sure, but at one point raids were an annual thing. Surely some sort of resistance could be organised, it's not like there's no tradition of this for the island dwelling ancient Britains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 (edited) Salway makes a useful point about the "collapse" of Gaul in relation to Germanic pressure-evidenced by a failure to rebuild many villa sites across (the somme area in particular if I remember ) the more prosperous agricultural areas.He sugggests that despite a fatally weakened military and crippled administration a semblance of Roman life continued for over half a century, as there was no general centralised perception by either citizens or aggressors that a strategic change had occured and that an active acquisitive policy could result in a drastic change of overlordship. Perhaps Britain was similarly debilitated and demoralised-we know standards of living fell badly and "sphisticated " life could not continue. perhaps those a-Viking were pushing an unlocked door. Combat technology certainly didnt move forward .Heavy raiding isnt a social takeover just an erosion of the social fabric-until someone decides they want to be king! Edited January 29, 2006 by Pertinax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 One thing I've been wondering about Viking invasions - why was there so little resistance? Vikings were fierce to be sure, but at one point raids were an annual thing. Surely some sort of resistance could be organised, it's not like there's no tradition of this for the island dwelling ancient Britains. Piracy and territory raiding (by sea) was an extremely ancient practice that goes way back into the early Bronze Age if not earlier. Furthermore, it wasn't limited to just barbarians and the Vikings certainly weren't pioneers in the field. The reason I personally feel they gained the reputaion that they have is that they made a habit of targeting monestaries and churches. Before the Christian era, treasure was kept in state treasuries or well defended temples (think the Celtic raids on Delphi). So during the Viking raids, you have the situation that they are performing these raids against some of the only people who could write and who took the theft of their religious artifacts very seriously. So where there was resistance you don't really hear about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted January 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Sure, I once read someplace that the Claudian invasion was a strategic move, a means to secure the English channel from Frisian (north German/Danish) seaborne raiders from attacking the gallic coastline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Sure, I once read someplace that the Claudian invasion was a strategic move, a means to secure the English channel from Frisian (north German/Danish) seaborne raiders from attacking the gallic coastline. Salway , who I cite, refers to exactly this theory-and to my mind argues very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Sure, I once read someplace that the Claudian invasion was a strategic move, a means to secure the English channel from Frisian (north German/Danish) seaborne raiders from attacking the gallic coastline. Salway , who I cite, refers to exactly this theory-and to my mind argues very well. What's the gist of the argument? Did the Roman build a naval force to secure the Channel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 What's the gist of the argument? Did the Roman build a naval force to secure the Channel? While intentions are always difficult to discern... its quite clear that there was a Roman naval base at Gesoriacum (near modern Boulogne, France). The Classic Britannica served as military ferry for passage between Britannia and Gaul but obviously patrolled the waters of the Mare Britannicum (Channel) and the coastal waters of Britain, Gaul and Germania. It had been there (at Portus Itius) since the conquests of Caesar and remained so for centuries. Obviously there was some need for the presence of a fleet beyond just ferrying troops back and forth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longbow Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 In the 3rd Century the Coastal forts were built and the fleet was increased because of Saxon raids.Admiral Carausius then used these ships and forts for his Rebellion . 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.