Ancient and Archaeology聽 permalink
Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by Hispanola (U8140452) on Tuesday, 1st May 2007
Once under Roman rule, were the countries that are now France and England pretty much the same in the way they were treated by the Romans?
This is to settle a family discussion, where one side claims that whereas France was completely Romanised, no part of the UK was, that the Romans kept sending in troops now and again to keep the peace but that no part of the UK was Romanised like Gaul was. The other side suggests that since there are large numbers of Roman villas, towns, and roads, that Roman civilisation took a very comprehensive hold in a lot of Britain.
Any evidence for either side?
Thanks in advance.
HispanolaLink to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 2
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 1st May 2007
i personally think that by 100 ad 95% of England was romanised - and who can blame them - peace - education - trade - commerce good standard of living - roads - and of course dont forget the wine - the troops were here to keep those dastardly jocks away
stLink to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 3
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Tuesday, 1st May 2007
Roman civilisation took a very comprehensive hold in a lot of Britain聽
Probably 5th Century Celtic Britain was Romanised, as was France.
But then Britain was subjected to invasions by Germanic tribes, Angles, Saxons, Jutes. Who pushed the Romanised Celtic Britons into Wales.
And practically extinguished Roman civilisation, and the Latin language.
Whereas France, never experienced a similar mass invasion, except in parts of the north.
So the French kept on being Gallic and speaking a development of Latin.Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 4
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Wednesday, 2nd May 2007
the de-romanisation of britain started before the invasions.
remember that most of the roman military forces in britain (4 legions-the largest concentration of roman military might in any one province as far as im aware) where augmented by a helluva lotta sarmation foederati.
and the very fact that 4 legions where needed would indicate that britannia was not quite so roman as we may think.Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 5
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 2nd May 2007
Hi malacandran,
Surely the area we now know as France was invaded by Germanic tribes, the obvious one being the Franks? How about the Visigoths who had a real chunky kingdom that covered large areas of the country from the south moving northwards? Also, didn't the Vandals and every other Germanic barbarian tribe on their way to the Costa Del Sol tend to use Gaul as both a shortcut and a way to pick up some extra spending money for cerveza?
Cheers,
RFLink to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 6
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 2nd May 2007
The south of France (Lyons and south) seems to have been very Romanised. Lyons itself had 4 aqueducts, a mint, and much else. If you look at the remains at places like Nimes and Arles, we see substantial Roman civic buildings. The region of Provence takes its name from the Roman name Provincia.
As far as I am aware, almost all of the Roman soldiers in Gaul were stationed on the frontier, to defend the province.
In Britain, the extent of Romanisation is debatable. It seems that the hill forts which had been occupied in the Iron Age were all abandoned as the people began settling in towns and villas, but this could have been a compulsory move (Rome not wanting any natives occupying strong points). The existence of towns and cities, currency, continental pottery etc does indicate that Romanisation took hold. But it seems to have waned very quickly when Roman soldiers, and particular issues of coin, ceased in the late 4th century. Perhaps Britannia's economy could not survive without regular injections of Roman money. Or perhaps it was just the fact that the loss of Gaul to barbarians after the invasion of 409, meant that the markets for British goods became inaccessible, so the economy withered.
There were 4 legions in Britain, plus auxiliaries, but these were deployed in the North and West, so they were mainly there to stop invasion, not primarily for keeping the British population subservient.Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 7
Posted by Hispanola (U8140452) on Wednesday, 2nd May 2007
Thanks for your interesting replies... at least Sunday lunch conversation with my father in law won't dry up.
Does make me wonder about the differences post roman: French is a Romantic language, English is a mixture of Anglo Saxon and Norman... Were the invasions into Britain so much stronger that all romantic language was wiped out? What about Gallo in Eastern Brittany? was that a pre or post Roman language?
HispanolaLink to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 8
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Thursday, 3rd May 2007
The Breton language is post Rome in that it mainly developed from the emigration of southern Britons to the continent. French like Italian, Spainish, Portugeuse etc are all romance tongues but with the exception of italian i would be hard pressed to explain exactly why as all these territories were invaded as was Britain. So why don't the Spainish speak visigoth, why the Italians not speaking Ostogoth, the French speaking Frankish etc, mmm, interesting question
Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 9
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
Roman influence on Britain was just as profound as its influence on Gaul and Spain. The difference lies with the changes to these regions after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
Southern Britain had been influenced by Roman culture long before the invasion of 43 AD, with large scale trade between Gaul and Britain.
Lowland Britain (England) adapted very successfully to Roman rule and prospered greatly from the Empire, there was of course constant friction and occasional wars along the borders, but even what is present day southern Scotland enjoyed the wealth and prosperity that the empire brought.
Tacitus writing at the end of the first century AD is rather disparaging of how quickly the Britons adopted Roman 鈥渃ivilisation鈥. According to Tacitus the Britons learned Latin, dressed in togas and indulged in the 鈥渄emoralising temptations of arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets.鈥.
Archaeology also shows just how successfully Britain adapted to Roman rule. By the 4th century lowland Britain was one of the most prosperous regions of the empire and every bit as 鈥淩oman鈥 as Gaul.
With the fall of the Western Roman Empire Britain and Gaul took different paths entirely. The Germanic tribes who occupied Gaul and the rest of Western Europe supplanted the ruling 鈥淩oman鈥 elite, but tried to retain the wealth and perks that went with the empire such as the titles of Counts and Dukes. But without the bureaucracy and administration that had maintained the Roman Empire Western Europe descended into tribal conflict and the Dark ages.
Britain had a different transition from province to nations. The Germanic tribes who migrated to Britain struggled to gain a strong foothold against a powerful British defence.
There is very little evidence to back this up but looking at the consequences and the difference between Britain and continental Europe it would appear that the Romano British fought desperately to maintain their way of life and in so doing they actually destroyed it completely.
The legend of King Arthur may well have a basis in truth within these times, probably not as a single man but more as a representation of the British struggle against the 鈥淓nglish鈥. Arguably Britain entered into a much deeper dark ages than the rest of Europe as a result of the fierce struggle to maintain the Romano British way of life.
The result of this struggle between the migrating Germanic tribes and the last vestiges of Roman Britain not only led to the destruction of roman culture in Britain, but also more importantly transformed the Germanic tribes into a more unified group that would eventually see themselves as English.Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 10
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
englishvote, not disagreeing with what you say but i do not know what you mean by 'it would appear that the Romano British fought desperately to maintain their way of life and in so doing they actually destroyed it completely'. If you feel that the Romano-British were subjected to barbarian invaders who took their lands, what else could they do but fight against it? You cannot blame them if the invaders came and ruined their way of life. They did not destroy their own way of life, the ivaders did.
Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 11
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
Hi fascinating
So my point is that the 鈥渋nvading barbarians鈥 did not come to Britain to replace the British, but to control and rule Britain. The British could have kept their culture just like the Romano Gauls retain much of theirs, but instead they fought against the invaders and in so doing they ensured the demise of Roman British culture.
The difference between Britain and continental Europe post Roman Empire was the retention of culture language and customs within the society that replaced Roman rule in mainland Europe.
The Franks, Lombards and other Germanic peoples replaced the ruling elite and took the people鈥檚 land but kept, or at least tried to keep, the benefits of the empire for themselves. They did not exterminate or even force the Romano Gaul population to move away, the Franks simply set themselves up as the new masters in Gaul.
I would say the Franks did not try to destroy the Roman Empire but instead wanted to put themselves at the top of Roman society in Gaul. Also there was an attitude within Roman Gaul that the Roman army should do the fighting and not the landed gentry and middle classes. Tacitus writing in the first century AD claims that even then the Gauls had become soft because of the long years of peace.
With this attitude it was relatively easy for the Franks to in effect replace the Roman army and have the middle class and peasantry within Gaul work for them.
The Romano Gaul did not choose to fight to keep ownership of their land.
For some reason this did not appear to happen in Britain, maybe because there was still a Romano British army willing to fight, maybe because a small group of leaders put together an effective fighting force, or maybe the British population just chose to fight against the invaders.
I am sure the Angles, Saxons and others would have been very happy to have set themselves up as a ruling elite within post Roman Britain, but by the time the Anglo-Saxons had gained control of lowland Britain the Romano British culture had disappeared.
This all assumes that the migration from Europe was small scale and not a general replacement of the indigenous population. There is still dispute as to the numbers of Germanic immigrants to Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries. But no evidence that Germanic peoples replaced the British people to any large degree.
7th century England is very different to 7th century continental Europe in culture language and society, the reason why this came about when the Roman empire was replaced by basically the same Germanic peoples leads me to think that something different happened in 5th century Britain.
Direct evidence simply does not exist, but a very wealthy Roman Britain of the 4th century changed into a 7th century England that shared very little in common with it.Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 12
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
englishvote, yes I agree that, as you say, 'something different happened' in Britain, but I don't quite get your line of reasoning. You say that the Saxons et al would have been very happy to set themselves up as a new elite, but what is your evidence for this? They were not used to cities and roads. Maybe they wanted to enforce their own way of life, en masse, such things have happened in history. Think of the Vikings a couple of hundred years later, they sought new lands, and wanted to take as much as they could for their own use. I tend to think of the Saxons and others as doing much the same.
What happened I think was, that when the Romans left Britain in 410, the British tried to continue their old way of life, but without currency etc, or a single government,it was not really viable. I theorise a drop in population - but even if I am wrong on this point, there could still have been large swathes of land available, since the population does not seem to have been very large. What we know from history is that some Saxons were employed as mercenaries, and paid with land. Then it seems that many of them decided to migrate en masse. The Roman way of life was alien to them; they did not have the skills to make roads and solid buildings etc, and it seems that the British had lost these skills too, because we do not see any new building by them, (and precious little pottery or other manufactured goods) so I reckon continuation of the Roman way of life was not an option.
The loss of these rather simple skills, soon after the Roman army left, implies to me something rather drastic, such as a massive population drop among the native population, or some other catastrophe, which was not experienced in the same measure in Gaul.Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 13
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
Hi fascinating
This is purely conjecture on my part of course, there is very little hard evidence to back up my argument, but also very little to contradict it either!
I do not see the Germanic tribes that migrated into Britain as very different to the Germanic tribes that migrated into Western Europe, so why did they have very different results?
Population decline or even collapse could well be the cause, but was there also a fall in the population within Gaul, and if so why was so much retained in France that was not in England?
The simple removal of Roman bureaucracy and administration would have had a huge effect on the maintaining of roads and even the building of houses.
Road maintenance is costly and it is very unlikely that any local tribe would have spent their meagre resources on repairing the imperial road network. I do not think the road skills were lost but simply died out when the workers were forced to become farmers to survive.
The same with villas and official buildings, without the bureaucrats to organise and set aside funds the workers had to become farmers. As probably did all the bureaucrats, and not very successful farmers if modern bureaucrats are anything to go by.
It could be that simply the change from a civilised urban bureaucracy to a rural society was cause of the changes we see. Just think of the massive change to our society if all the civil servants had to earn their living by their own hands.
But of course this ignores the barbarian invasion, there was an outside force that must have had a huge effect on the transition.
I still see conflict as the reason why the invading tribes did not adopt the social system that they so readily set up in Gaul.Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 14
Posted by Hispanola (U8140452) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
Richie (Message 8): sorry to be pernicettty, but I was talking about GALLO in Eastern Brittany, not Breton, which was spoken in Western Brittany.
So was the difference in 6th to 7th Centuries due to the differenct response of the indigenous peoples to the Germanic invaders on the in France and Britain? Suggesting that there WAS some significant difference between Roman Britain and Roman Gaul.
Was there aver any definitive genetic answer to the postRoman population of Britain?
HispanolaLink to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 15
Posted by mickeymay (U3600416) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
I think we quite enjoy the notion that Roman Britain was quite a peaceful place, and perhaps even like the shire in "lord of the rings." Yet Britain was quite a thick forest, and I daresay there were plenty of Brigands about and plenty attrocities took place.
Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 16
Posted by mickeymay (U3600416) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
I think we quite enjoy the notion that Roman Britain was quite a peaceful place, and perhaps even like the shire in "lord of the rings." Yet Britain was quite a thick forest, and I daresay there were plenty of Brigands about and plenty attrocities took place. France was under total control of the Romans (apart from one gaulish village)
The point is, I would imagine that Britain was under a pretty harsh regime being only seventy percent occupied, and bandits were freely killing, raping and robbing, with little effect from Roman rule.Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 17
Posted by mickeymay (U3600416) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
Sorry didn't mean to post half the reply first.
Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 18
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Sunday, 6th May 2007
thats why britain was teh single most heavily garrisoned province in the empire.
Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 19
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 7th May 2007
It was most heavily garrisoned away from the main population centres,strongly implying that they were mainly there to repel external threats.
Mickeymay's posting about brigands and bandits is pure speculation with no evidence.Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 20
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Tuesday, 15th May 2007
Sorry Mickeymay, you can鈥檛 get away with this: 鈥榊et Britain was quite a thick forest, and I daresay there were plenty of Brigands about and plenty attrocities took place.鈥 When, around 100AD, the Roman conquest was just about over, (except for later attempts to push farther north) Britain was not significantly more wooded than it was in say 400AD or 1066. The woods were generally small to medium-sized. In fact there were larger tree-covered areas in Gaul (consider that wild boar survived continuously so they are still present in modern France).
In Roman Britannia I see a division between Southern Britain, where Roman cities, villas etc. are evidence of their civilisation taking quite a deep hold, and Northern (and Western) Britain, which was a militarised region, prone to rebellion by tribes like the Brigantes, and more at risk from Irish and Pictish raids. A city like Verulamium (St Albans) was a 鈥楻oman鈥 place of trade, 鈥榗ulture鈥, wealth etc. A city like Luguvallium (Carlisle) must have had the character of a frontier garrison town.
The region that of course fell most easily to Angles, Saxons and Jutes was that which faced them across the North Sea, the civilised, Romanised bit with the best agricultural land. The region that more successfully resisted them was the less-Romanised bit, generally hilly and thus more easily defended, easier to conduct a kind of 鈥榞uerrilla warfare鈥 from. Ironically, British success around 500AD 9the battle of Mons Badonicus, etc.) may have led the Anglo-Saxons to consolidate their grip on the Eastern and Southern parts they held, increasing its level of 鈥楢nglicisation鈥 before later resuming their westward push.
The early Frankish kings and nobles (Merovingians) that ruled post-Roman Gaul (after they put paid to the Visigoths at the start of the sixth century) saw it as a kind of treasure-chest which they could exploit. The kings divided it, in terms of what their sons would inherit, in packages of land, often hundreds of miles apart, with no respect for geographical or ethnic boundaries, provided that each son got an equal share. Being usually illiterate, and not knowing 鈥楻oman鈥 law, they relied on Gallo-Romans to administer it for them, and got on with the business of fighting wars or assassinating their own kindred.
The later Carolingians had a very different view, at their best (or worst depending on your point of view!) seeing themselves as 鈥榯he Christian people鈥, successors to Rome, and wanting to extend their Empire into 鈥榟eathen鈥 lands, and to promote learning and the rule of law.Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 21
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 5th June 2007
Yet Britain was quite a thick forest聽
This is a common misconception.
Britain in Roman times (and before) had significant wheatfields etc. There were in fact far more trees, woods and forests, a thousand years later, in 13th century England than there were in Roman Britain.Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 22
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 5th June 2007
Evidence please?
Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 23
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Tuesday, 5th June 2007
Adding my mite to the richer trough - and getting back to the first discussion re Gaul.
Long befor Caesar and Claudius crossed the channel,central and southern Gaul were becoming 'Romanized.'
Massalia, a long established Greek colony was renowned for its education.The Roman Domitii's had awarded several chieftains Roman citizenship many years before Caesar became Governor of Provence.
Tribes were negotiating with Rome and sending delegates to the Senate. There were long established treaties with tribes such as the Aedui and off and on with the Allobrogues.
Many auxiliaries were recruited in Gaul for Caesar's legions including cavalry. Long before him, Marius had founded a colony at Aix en Provence for his retired veterans; ever a good general's concern.
Both Greek and Roman traders had long travelled into Gaul where their god Hermes/Mercury was taken up and honoured by the tribes - possibly to hedge their bets in healthy respect for foreign affluence.
Britain is different. Britain is a collection of islands - detached - isolated from neighbours' interaction in trade, customs and language development.
Remove the Roman presence and the waters closed over until the next invasions.
Being islanders has made a difference in several respects and worthy of a discussion thread, perhaps.
Regards P.Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
-
Message 24
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Wednesday, 6th June 2007
I don't think you can reliably say that Britain in the 13th century was more wooded than in the Roman period. Ther is no evidence (e.g. pollen analysis showing increased tree pollen), even for the turbulent years immediately after 410AD, of a significant increase in woodland.
The Anglo-Saxons certainly cleared woodland on quite a scale to create farmland and provide sites for villages and homesteads - witness the numerous '-ley' placenames. Later Norse settlers continued to do so, in areas not previously cleared, so we have a lot of '-thwaites' in Cumbria and thereabouts.
Much of the land the Normans designated as 'forest' was not tree-covered, but was legally designated as such because 'forest law' applied, governing the right of the king/nobles/bishops to hunt there. The Forests of Bowland and Rossendale in the North West were large area of moorland even when they were first so designated. Even Sherwood Forest, as I have said before, was not mainly woodland, but heathland with scattered woods here and there.Link to this forum: Roman France and Britain: Similar or...?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.