Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
what if - roman remains
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 23rd February 2008
what if the Romans remain here
for any reason - because the last Roman Governor decides its a waste of time and effort to take the legions to rome for a lost cause
or
he decides he can be the governor of a discrete empire
would the saxons or vikings ever have been able to establish a permanent presence here - the saxon shore forts suggest not - although they couldnt have stopped the raids
obviously the replacement troops would have had to be locally recruited - no bad thing
if the goverment and army had survived we would - as an island- been given a head start of about 600 yrs with no "Dark Ages"and had central heating and brick houses from 400ad -
and probably a moon probe instead of the magna carta
st -
Message 2
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 24th February 2008
鈥榃hat if鈥 historical questions are fascinating, but at the end of the Roman period there wasn鈥檛 one British province, nor one British governor. Most of the Roman soldiers weren鈥檛 Roman, nor were they legions, nor were they commanded by the governor. In all probability the circumstances that did apply were put in place to stop the events that you propose from actually happening. The enthusiasm of the Romans for slaves, rather than machines, means that a continuing Roman Britain might have delayed, rather than advanced, a moon probe.
At the end of the fourth century there were four (or possibly five) British provinces each ruled by a praeses. They were part of the prefecture of Gaul with its capital in Trier. There would have been a vicarius with some sort of overall responsibility for the whole of Britain and two military commanders in Britain, the Dux Britanniarum and the comes litoris Saxonici. The generals probably had a large degree of independence in military matters. Troops had been withdrawn from Britain on several occasions in the last generation of Roman rule, and on other occasions elite forces had crossed the channel in the opposite direction.
It is difficult now to imagine how the inhabitants of Roman Britain thought, but I think that they probably thought of themselves as Roman, not British. There were 鈥榖reakaway鈥 movements in the late Empire, but these tended to produce imperial pretenders or Gallic empires, not local nation states. When, around 407, a host of German barbarians crossed the frozen Rhine into Gaul the first thought of a 鈥榣ocal鈥 British emperor, Constantine III, was not to organise British defence but to cross into Gaul in an attempt to retrieve the imperial situation. Presumably he took with him such portions of the army that could be persuaded to move. I know you're not keen on Alfred Duggan but his novel 'The Little Emperors' describes this complicated situation rather well I think.
If Constantine III had managed to retain a more parochial attitude could he have been able to maintain his army without central pay and military supplies? Probably not, the whole economy of Britain seems to have been organised by wealthy landed proprietors to produce cash crops, mainly cereals, not to sustain large local populations. The pottery industry required large military purchases to maintain itself. The exact function of the Saxon shore forts is still uncertain but they don鈥檛 contain accommodation for large numbers of men and can hardly have functioned like Norman castles with troops of controlling cavalry and probably were valueless without a navy active on both sides of the channel.
Perhaps the ultimate success of the Saxons in Britain resulted from their organization and technology being more appropriate for the current situation rather than the impressive fragments of a once mighty empire.
TP -
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 24th February 2008
It always amazes my how overrated was the Roman Empire in the issues of "technological/social progress" as well as in the issues of "military/tactics/weaponry". I have stated repeatedly (perhaps overstressed) that the real power of Rome was its politics and diplomacy, and of course its ability to find friends among local aristocracies and share the benefits of an extended Empire.
But how one can say that Rome equalled general development? Well, who can say that 5th A.D. century Britons were much more advanced than 3rd A.D. century Britons. To my eyes, at the base, there was not much of a difference, otherwise it would had left a profound effect that would persist even after the Saxon conquests. What was the real contribution of Rome to the region of France that was really near Rome? Not much more than a few towns, 1-2 baths, 1-2 roads... but what was the result? 100 people could read and write during the so-called "great Charlemagne's" kingdom... with biggie Charlie himself being illiterate. These are all proofs that the Roman Empire had no profound effect in these lands and the only real deeper influence were actually... the church. But the church seemed not to need the Empire itself, just the presence of a central figure in Rome that was beyond the state boundaries... e.g. Saxons were christianised and retained certain links with Rome without the presence of any Empire.
In my own view Saxons faired well without the "Roman influece". In the medieval times they built the most progressed kingdom of western Europe. I think Celtics could had done it also without the Romans.
Why people think that Romans equalled evolution? Well speaking for the Eastern Mediterranean it seems that they meant the opposite. Not that they intended to do so but the result was that the world had moved much faster between 400 B.C. and 150 A.D. than between 150 B.C. and 400 A.D. In fact many if not the vast majority of Roman "innovations" were just re-utilisations of Hellenistic innovations while many of the Hellenistic breakthroughs did not find any continuation during the Roman Empire. The truth is that the Empire's innovation increased again when the centre of political gravity fell again to the east (although Byzantium, a civilisation that was 1000 years after completely desrtroyed and barried - thus unknown to us - is perceived as a period of stagnacy, quite the opposite is actually true... especially if we take into account the Arab and Rennaissance civilisations).
In any case, had the Romans remained in England and continued as a breakaway Roman kingdom, indeed there would have possibly remained a certain stability permitting the continuation of the earlier life-style with certainly more increased commercial and cultural links with the continent. However, with the largely regressive Franks in France and all these hordes of barbarians patrolling the neighbourhood I am not so sure that Roman Britons - even if successful in maintaining a united kingdom - could had ever developed in a much more rapid pace than what Saxons presented. Yes, the culture would be different, more Roman-like, but the social-cultural-technological breakthroughs would not had been anything extraordinary. -
Message 4
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 24th February 2008
The Roman field army of the Comes Britanniae left Britain before Roman rule ended here. It is suggested that Constantine 3rd took it to Gaul and it never returned.
There was still the border troops here along Hadrian鈥檚 wall under the command of Dux Britanniarum, and the coastal defence forces of the Comes Litoria Saxonici commonly called the Count of the Saxon shore. But without the bureaucracy and wealth of the rest of the Empire even these troops could no longer be supported other than as local militia.
The province of Britain could not support these few remaining units let alone the much more expensive troops of the regular elite field army. There was never any chance of Britain keeping a sizeable Roman professional army, but it is suggested that some basis for the King Arthur story comes from the exploits of small forces of Roman equipped cavalry. -
Message 5
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 24th February 2008
E-Nik
It always amazes my how overrated was the Roman Empire in the issues of "technological/social progress" as well as in the issues of "military/tactics/weaponry".
听
The Roman empire stands out as the most successful, power and long lasting empire the world has ever known, granted it was brutal and oppressive but that can be said of all empires even the failed insignificant ones.
But how one can say that Rome equalled general development? Well, who can say that 5th A.D. century Britons were much more advanced than 3rd A.D. century Britons.
听
a strange set of dates, if we look at the progress from the 1st century BC iron age Britain to 4th century AD Roman Britain we see vast improvements in agriculture, roads, water supply, law, the arts and commence with the rest of the Europe.
Again there are of course down sides to all this 鈥減rogress鈥, such as taxation, exploitation and a removal of many personal freedoms.
But Roman Britain in the 4th century AD was very prosperous and the end of the Western Roman Empire was a more dramatic event in Britain than much of Europe.
What was the real contribution of Rome to the region of France that was really near Rome? Not much more than a few towns, 1-2 baths, 1-2 roads... but what was the result?
听
this is just too silly a statement to justify reply, your desperate attempt to champion your region is showing up as foolishness.
100 people could read and write during the so-called "great Charlemagne's" kingdom... with biggie Charlie himself being illiterate. These are all proofs that the Roman Empire had no profound effect in these lands
听
What possible bearing does Charlemagne have on the Roman Empire? He ruled around 800 AD, that is 324 years after the accepted date of the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
In my own view Saxons faired well without the "Roman influece".
听
Well of course they did, they existed outside of the Empire and when the Roman Empire collapsed they exploited the power vacuum, they did very well out of picking the scraps from what was left of civilisation.
Well speaking for the Eastern Mediterranean it seems that they meant the opposite. Not that they intended to do so but the result was that the world had moved much faster between 400 B.C. and 150 A.D. than between 150 B.C. and 400 A.D
听
Have you any evidence to back up these claims, and the fact that your dates overlap tends to suggest that any Roman progress will be attributed to Greek culture, as usual!
Sorry Nik but another sorry attempt to promote Hellenistic culture over Roman achievements and this time it is too rambling and incoherent to be taken seriously. -
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 25th February 2008
Hmmm perhaps I have been too strict with Romans but then the fact that they hindered overall development is not my opinion, but that of the vast majority of historians.
-
Message 7
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 25th February 2008
I agree with Nik that the progress was less during the Roman Empire than it had been during the 400 years prior to it. But progress (measured in terms of learning, science and technology) in the period 400-800 was MUCH less than either of the previous 2 periods, in fact there is not much doubt that things went retrograde, with many skills lost, some only to be rediscovered in the 19th century.
Attempting to answer the opening post, we have some notion of what would have happened if, for example, Aetius had not been murdered, and this great general somehow managed to restore the Western Empire. We have the case of the Eastern Roman Empire surviving, and, as I have said before, I regard this to have been a bureaucratic entity which, if anything, stifled innovation and creativity. I regard it as much like the Chinese 'empire', which did survive many vicissitudes, but considering its history of 5000 years, did not really contribute very much of value to humanity.
Not that I like to be contraversial.... -
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 25th February 2008
I would not jump into easy conclusions for the 400 A.D.-800 A.D. period, regarding the Eastern Empire. The view about its bureaucracy stiffling innovation seems very 18th-19th century to me. The truth is that it is just that we know less about Eastern Romans of that period than about Spartans of 6th century B.C. (ok, kind of saying). However judjing from Arab civilisation (a copy of the Eastern Roman and Persian Sassanide ones - Arabs themselves never refused that fact) and from the Renaissance of western Europe (that happened only after 1204 A.D.)... there was much more into Eastern Rome than we tend to think. Afterall that is why everyone was looking there first and not to anywhere else.
Byzantine innovation did not start and end with the "greek fire" (a material that even 19th A.D. mechanics and chemistry could not easily handle), there was scertainly much more into it (random e.g. prohibition of building more than 9-storey buildings for earthquake prevention, statistical clinical researches on cardiovascular diseases by state doctors workign in public hospitals, state wellfare, and 100s of other really very modern concepts that we would had never thought of existing and running back in those times). -
Message 9
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 25th February 2008
Nik, your view seems very 20th century to me..
Does that make your views any better or worse than mine?
I don't understand the sentence 'However judging from the Arab civlisation [ie a completely separate entity] and from the Renaissance of Western Europe [which came after the Byzantines] there is much more to Eastern Rome than we tend to think.
The innovations you cite : prohibition of 10 storey buildings: the Romans had introduced the 70 feet height restriction 800 years earlier : state welfare - their had been such things as the alimenta and the corn dole during the Roman Empire, and welfare by individual city states was commonplace : clinical researh - so what wonderful medical innovations occured as a result of this research?
I am not seeking to trash the Byzantine civilisation. All I am saying is that, like almost every empire in history, innovation is more crushed than cultivated. The Roman Empire was better than most empires, but as you say a lot was based on Greek heritage.
The most innovative periods of history, I theorise, have been where society has become organised into decent sized (100,000+) cities or states, but these cities and states are largely allowed to follow their own destinies (Greece in 5th century BC, Europe in 15th century AD). -
Message 10
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 25th February 2008
Do not get me wrong Rainbow, I am not at all "vertical" on my above approach. Initially I just wanted to state my main view - that the maintenance of the Roman administration in Britain transformed in a local kingdom (basically run by Romanised Celtics) would not necesarily give something extraordinarily better than what Saxons gave (who I believe faired not bad at all).
You said that:
""The most innovative periods of history, I theorise, have been where society has become organised into decent sized (100,000+) cities or states, but these cities and states are largely allowed to follow their own destinies (Greece in 5th century BC, Europe in 15th century AD).""
This is very true. Note also that I am the first that reminds all that European states of the 15th-19th century provided with the fastest ever evolving civilisation on earth, talking about pace of innovation simply no comparison to any other (including "my Greeks", hehehe!).
However one has to take into account many other issues - like the overall environment. What strikes us is that the 5th B.C. century environment was very favourable for most of the Greek cities living in their "Greek cocoon" (apart those in Spain that had to face the Carthagenian expansionism and some of the Ionian ones that faced some Persian oppresion - the latter though could continue their cultural output as Persians did not stiffle them completely). The 15th century was also a cocoon for western Europe. On the one hand, they were free from competition from the east - as Byzantium was out for some centuries, Arabs were under the Ottomans, RUssians were protecting for once and for all the Europeanoasian border while the Ottomans were getting the more incapable day by day as they never managed to control even the seas around them. Yes, Spain could swallow Portugal and England Holland but then no "destruction of Carthage" would occur. There were harsh wars and difficulties but the by-then increasingly internationalised markets ensured that no major kingdom would prevail over the other - and even if it did it, the existence of press implied that all cultural/scientific knowledge would not be lost. Most certainly there was no danger of the likes that Arabs had faced in the face of Mongols.
But then if comparing 15th century A.D. and 5th century B.C. with what happened from 4th century A.D. to 13th century A.D. there is simply NO comparison!!! These guys in the Byzantine Empire were simply all alone fighting the world and with the fall of the Persians to Arabs, the Byzantines were left with a bunch of fanatics around them who in their "most civilised form" were just copying like the Arabic culture which stopped copying and started giving original things at a time that it was only too near chronologically to its destruction by the Mongols and its mummification by the Turks). If one counts down the list of enemies faced and the difficulties of the surrounding environment there is absolutely no comparison. Persians, Goths, Vandals, Petchenegs, Avars, Bulgarians, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, Serbs, Franks etc. etc. most of whom unfortunately combined barbarism with complex warfare knowledge, tendency for raids with incredibly large number of armies, and all that package covered with exceptionally well-armed armies (regardless of numbers) as the widespread of chain-mail and mass production weaponry had dropped prices to minimum... if not all of these people, then most of them having 1 thing in mind: break in, steal, kill, destroy and burn.
Hence, taking into account all these facts, the Byzantine Empire fared far beyond everything before it and after it. There is absolutely no comparison. -
Message 11
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
I can't see that the Byzantines fared better than the Romans, unless you mean that they would have fared better than the Romans had they not been surrounded by enemies.
And why did you call me 'Rainbow'? -
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Hehe well the rainbow is indeed a fascinating phenomenon!
Well kind of yes, I was trying to say as you suggested though I am well aware it is almost impossible to make such comparisons between state-structures positioned in different times.
However, back in our original discussion, I am straight on this: Saxons did not do anything worse than what would Romanised Britons did. Tough luck for them that they built mainly wooden structures that left little surviving today to testify their progress.
To give you the comparison, who knows that early archaic Greeks did prefer wood rather than stone for building their public buildings and many architect experts argue that the whole classical style is actually kind of "wrong" in the sense that it a style developed and suited for wooden structures and not so much for stone ones!
I think in the absence of extensive traiding links with the east, and surrounded by, generally, backward people like the Francs or the rest of the Germanics, the Romanised Celtics of Britain would not had fared much further than where Saxons went. -
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
again... sorry for my bad english above (and in general!), ehehe... well if Roman Britons maintained power now we would talk latin perhaps here?
-
Message 14
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
I don't know what you mean by saying that the Saxons 'did not do any worse' than the Romano-Brits.
For hundreds of years after the Saxons came, the place was trashed. Yes I know that they used wooden buildings and artefacts, mainly, and so most of their 'stuff' has not been detected. But the very fact that they could only make perishable stuff shows how degraded the economy had become. -
Message 15
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
or perhaps those following (don't just blame the Saxons) were more in tune with nature than the Romans.
Are we any better because our plastic waste will outast us by several centuries? -
Message 16
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Hi fascinating,
I know that the Saxons aren't your favourite people but 'the place was trashed' and the 'economy was degraded' are huge exaggerations. Building in stone and drinking out of pottery doesn't give a community moral superiority over a society who prefer wood and horn. Their technology was highly appropriate to the times.
If today you were offered a country located timber-framed medieval building with a thatched roof would you turn it down? Well that is the sort of building Saxons liked too. Saxon peoples produced glassware and exquisite jewellery, as Sutton Hoo and other burial sites proves. Saxons smiths at Hamwih mastered the production of steel strip and were fire-welding onto soft iron to make serviceable knives. An early medieval pottery tradition did revive, not to mention illuminated manuscripts and ecclesiastical embroidery.
Impressive people; no wonder the Romano-British gave them such a welcome and wanted to emulate them.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 17
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Just to point out to those who do not know or chose to forget that the term "Byzantine Empire" is a purely modern term, an invention of historians and antiquarians.
The Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire, they called themselves Roman and any suggestion that they are separate entities is completely unfounded.
If the Byzantine Empire achieved great advances then it is a great advance for the Roman Empire.
On other points the advances in agriculture, architecture, engineering and science during the Roman Empire are unparalleled for any other period or Empire until very modern times.
The Romans farmed land that even today lays unused because the locals cannot replicate Roman engineering. In Britain it was not until the agricultural reforms and advances of the 18th century that the same level of agricultural land usage attained the same levels as Roman Britain.
Towns in Europe still use Roman aqueducts and drainage, Roman churches are still places of worship because of excellent Roman architecture, Roman buildings are still in use because of superb Roman engineering.
The European Renaissance starts from introduction of Roman science, engineering, architecture and art long lost in Europe but preserved in the east. But it was only preserved and not improved by the east, it took the new western European societies to take this knowledge and continue Roman progress. -
Message 18
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Yes we all know that "Byzantine" is a wrong term found by a French "enlightment" guy who largely despised Eastern Romans. Back then none would ever use this term. These were Roman citizens, mainly of Greek ethnicity or other (in the powerscale of the Empire after Greeks, it was the Armenians and then all the rest of ethnicities that lived around)
Was it Romans or what is Romans using Greek technology? Cos I do not remember many Roman scientists and engineers. I mean well into late times not many "Roman" scientists/engineers came from within, west or north of Rome! They all came from the Hellenistic east and the vast majority were downright Greeks, no wonder why when the center of political gravity moved to the east things took off.
Innovation during the Roman Empire came singlehandedly from the east, some applications of it were applied scarcely in the west, albeit with not much of a permanent success since there was no "Roman heritage" left marking the people and there was a huge vacuum of 1000 years between the next big thing... at times these lands having been under the direct danger of forgetting completely how to read and write (had it not been for the church).
On the other hand the east continued as strong as ever and went on to produce many more things, things largely unknown to us knowadays but felt via the Arabic civilisation (based on the byzantine and Persian) and the Renaissance (based on the byzantine and Arabic). To sum up the bulk of the civilisational work of these times was up to Greeks and Persians. Arabs copied largely and unftorunately as soon as they started making their own they fell under the Mongols (unexpected event) and went to sleep under the Ottomans. Europeans copied throughout much of the Renaissance and started producing clearly their own after the relgious wars of the mid-16th at a time they were already 100 years on the process of colonisation of the whole globe and from there on they moved to provide with the fastest ever evolving civilisation on earth!
No I am sorry but it was all thanks to Greeks and Persians not of Romans! Hehehe!
PS: Some might think that I degrade Arabs as "copying".... well what can I do when these guys were always searching for professors frmo Byzantium (and not the opposite) and when Byzantine young students of provincial professors were caught by Arabs were considered as high-ranking professors suprassing those of their own. However, a big bravo to Arabs for being eager to learn unlike others that lately got in the habit... hehe!
PS: Cool down I am joking. -
Message 19
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
E-Nik
As usual our discussions come down to terminology, what is Roman and what is Greek?
For the sake of our argument after 168 BC Greece is Roman, it is part of the Roman world. To differentiate between Greek and Roman after this date is pointless as far as this discussion goes.
If you just want to compare the city of Rome or just the Latin鈥檚 with the Greeks then maybe we could say Greek achievements and Roman achievements, but after 168BC there can only be one and that is the Roman Empire.
These were Roman citizens, mainly of Greek ethnicity or other (in the powerscale of the Empire after Greeks, it was the Armenians and then all the rest of ethnicities that lived around)
听
The Byzantine Empire used the Greek language but the same point that I made above still applies, they were all Roman.
The population from what is now called Greece only made up a small portion of the Byzantine Empire, its main population centres were in Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Even after the Arab conquests and the loss of Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia, the largest population group came from Asia Minor.
If we are to attribute any modern named region to the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire it is not Greek but most definitely Turkish. -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Nicely said and precisely, I cannot disagree. Take back my previous sayings about Romans/later Romans.
-
Message 21
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
The Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire, they called themselves Roman and any suggestion that they are separate entities is completely unfounded听
They were separate entities from 395, one entity was ruled by Arcadius and the other by Honorius. There was a separate senate for each.
The Byzantines called themselves Romans but then so did the people of Romania, long after they had been separated from the empire. So also did the people who lived in the city of Rome, which again was not part of the Byzantine empire.
I do think it is useful to have separate names to distinguish 2 places (the eastern and western Roman empires) which had very different histories. -
Message 22
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
I know that the Saxons aren't your favourite people but 'the place was trashed' and the 'economy was degraded' are huge exaggerations. Building in stone and drinking out of pottery doesn't give a community moral superiority over a society who prefer wood and horn. Their technology was highly appropriate to the times.
If today you were offered a country located timber-framed medieval building with a thatched roof would you turn it down? Well that is the sort of building Saxons liked too. Saxon peoples produced glassware and exquisite jewellery, as Sutton Hoo and other burial sites proves. Saxons smiths at Hamwih mastered the production of steel strip and were fire-welding onto soft iron to make serviceable knives. An early medieval pottery tradition did revive, not to mention illuminated manuscripts and ecclesiastical embroidery.
Impressive people; no wonder the Romano-British gave them such a welcome and wanted to emulate them.
听
I would not buy a house made of timber, I like my brick, though I admit it is mainly a personal preference.
First you say that they preferred wood and horn, because it was 'highly appropriate to the times'. Then you go on to tell me how wonderful their pottery, steel and embroidery were. So which is it to be? -
Message 23
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
Fascinating
I would not buy a house made of timber, I like my brick, though I admit it is mainly a personal preference.
听
Given the earthquake in Lincolnshire today I think wooded house might be a bit safer than our traditional brick!
But throughout ancient history houses have been timber frame construction, even at the height of Roman British society very few houses were brick or stone built.
We may see many Roman villas made of stone, but for the vast majority of people the main building material was wood.
Whether they are Iron Age Celts, Roman British or Anglo Saxon they practically all lived in timber framed houses. Iron Age hoses were mainly round and Saxon houses were mainly rectangular but the construction materials were the same.
The difference is that the wealthy Iron Age and Anglo Saxon classes also lived in timber framed houses, whereas the rich Roman British citizen could often afford a stone built villa. -
Message 24
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
Fascinating
I do think it is useful to have separate names to distinguish 2 places (the eastern and western Roman empires) which had very different histories.
听
Which is the main reason behind the invention of the term Byzantine Empire by modern historians.
But they are not really totally different entities, they have the same legal and political systems, of course after 476 AD there is only the Eastern Roman Empire so it cannot be claimed they were separate if one ceased to exist. -
Message 25
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
it cannot be claimed they were separate if one ceased to exist听
err, run that past me again? -
Message 26
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
Hi fascinating,
Well it's all a matter of time. Knives were highly important to the Saxons and their metal working skills were always impressive.
The north Germanic people didn't seem to think pottery appropriate to drink from. The Saxons seem to use wood and their neighbours in Scandinavia liked carved soapstone. There was early Saxon pottery, of course, but it was used for cremation urns not tableware. It did take time for European pottery fineware production to revive, and France and Germany were ahead of Britain, but 10th century ceramics were adequate. I suppose in Britain the output of the Gallic Samian ware factories wasn't equalled until post-medieval Stoke on Trent, but our Anglo-Saxon ancestors had plenty going for them.
TP -
Message 27
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
My point is that the eastern Roman Empire is a continuation from the single Roman Empire, there is no break, no new beginning and no rebuilding of a fallen empire. It is just one continuous empire which historians chose to give a different name after the western part is lost.
The Roman Empire continues but one portion of it is lost, this is not a separation of two parts heading in different directions with different histories. Western European history is different from Byzantine history, not Roman history is different from Byzantine history. -
Message 28
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
TP, just to get this clear, what you are saying is: early on the Saxons preferred to use materiaals like wood and bone only, but in later centuries they decided they liked pottery, metal, stone etc.?
-
Message 29
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
All communities have a material culture, and it is not always clear why they select the elements that they do. For example the Western Isles have a pottery tradition which started in the neolithic and continued uninterrupted (even by the Romans) until the 19th century. Whereas parts of mainland Scotland and England were aceramic for quite long periods. Within communities the materials used by the elites may also be quite distinct from those in common usage.
The Saxon and Anglian communities from early times used metal, ceramics(for cremation urns) and, amazingly glass for drinking vessels and beads. But they built in wood and 'turning cores' suggest that they used wood for drinking vessels and bowls. They evidently appreciated fine brooches and jewellery. Clearly much of this was restricted to the upper echelons of society, although each male would presumably have a spear and everyone a knife.
By the mid-Saxon period the knives in Hamwih are masterpieces of metallurgical skill and pottery cooking vessels were being produced, although they were not the equal of Roman products. At that stage stone started to be used for churches, although this was mainly robbed Roman spolia and architects may have been imported from Francia. The Saxons stayed faithful to wooden halls, none of which survive.
By the 9th-10th C the ceramics are finer and Saxon religious are becoming famous for their ecclesiastical embroidery and illuminated manuscripts. I won't say these are superior to those of Ireland but they are their equal. Intellectually the English (as we may now call them)are producing saints, scholars, historians and a king who could fight Viking armies to a standstill.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 30
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
TP, I see that you did not ask my question directly.
You do admit that, about 400 years after the Romans left, the Saxons were still incapable of making artefacts as good as the Romans', and that their first use of stone in buildings was use of Roman spoila.
After first trying to pretend that the Saxons were content to drink out of cattle horns and wooden bowls, you now admit that they went for high-quality goods and trinkets when they could get them.
So, I stand by my original opinion. The vast majority of people want material goods of decent quality, as you yourself must or else you would not be using a computer. The reason the Saxons did not have stone buildings and usable pottery was not because they were living in some bucolic splendour, revelling in being 'close to nature' or being very spiritual, as some would like to believe. They simply had no idea how to make these goods.My information is that the glass they got hold of was from robbing the Romano-Britons, and this they melted down and made their own trinkets. I am certain they would have made, at least, defensive walls of stone if they knew how to make them. The problem was they did not know how to do it. Eventually, knowledge was brought to them by churchmen from abroad and they learned (THREE HUNDRED YEARS after they invaded) to make some crude stone buildings, plus some artefacts nearly as good as those produced in iron-age Britain 700 years previously. -
Message 31
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008
Hi fascinating,
Let's look at the bigger picture. The Scandinavian Norse had no ceramic tradition, built their houses with carved wood, and drank out of cattle horns. They did one special thing, but that they did amazingly well. They built the most incredible ships, navigated the known world and beyond, and founded trading ports in Britain, Ireland and Europe. I can't bring myself to regard them as inferior to the Romans on the basis that they didn't have public baths and mosaics.
As you know I can't see the Saxon and Romano-British successor states as distinctively different as you do, but arguably in 500 years Saxon influenced pre-conquest England had become the most sophisticated state in western Europe. From early times the Saxon elites used glass bowls, claw beakers and squat blue jars. These were new Germanic designs. Did they recycle Roman material? Well yes - the reuse of glass cullet has been going on for millennia. Were the designs influenced by late Roman material? Again yes; all craftspeople are influenced by what has gone before. But the designs were new and no one could call their glass-ware trinkets.
It seem obvious to me that if the early Saxons could make wonderfully decorative cremation urns of pottery they could have made bowls and drinking vessels, had they seen the need. They didn't see the need and used wood; the Norse didn't see the need and used soapstone or horn.
It's difficult to judge Saxon (or Viking) wooden buildings since none survive. Obviously they are not going to be the equivalent of Flavian amphitheatre since they weren't the products of a great empire. And as for crude stone buildings; have you visited the church at Brixworth recently?
TP -
Message 32
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
I can't bring myself to regard them as inferior to the Romans on the basis that they didn't have public baths and mosaics.听
I am not really saying that the Saxons were inferior to the Romans, but I am saying that their technology was, most definitely, inferior to that of the Romans. But the opinion of you or I on that matter does not, in a sense, matter. The evidence, to me, shows that the Saxons THEMSELVES knew that Roman technology was superior. That's quite a claim, but all that I mean is; the fact that the Saxons came and plundered the goods that were produced by Romano-British, means that these things were desirable to them.
So why did they not produce these goods themselves? Because, obviously, they did not know how to. Yes they could mold a piece of clay, fashion it into the shape of a pot, and decorate it quite nicely, and then fire it. But they could not fire it at the temperature that is needed to make a vessel that can be used without breaking almost instantly. They could use these things to put ashes in and bury them in the ground. In that respect they were at the same level as the Beaker people, of 4000 years previously, who made rather nice pots. They could not make their own glass, I think, but thought glass was very nice and so they plundered glass and remelted it to make their own versions of glass goods. (Anyway, proof that they wanted these things is easy to come by because, when they finally did learn to make decent pottery, well, they made lots of it, and used it.) But a policy of robbing your neighbours for your own goods is self-defeating, because the neighbours become unable to produce the goods because of your own depredations.
You say that the Norse people built 'the most incredible ships'. Not so, the SS Titanic was much more incredible. Oh, you mean for the time? But maybe the ships of the meditteranean were much more incredible. After all, they could be very large and carry much more goods than the Norse ships. Moreover the Romans were able, with these ships, to circumnavigate Britain, which is a sea journey worthy of the Norse.
Saying that the Saxons produced the 'most sophisticated state in Western Europe' is highly arguable. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT disagreeing with you, but I am not agreeing either, I am merely pointing out what a huge sweeping judgemental statement you are making.
Sorry for all this verbiage. Look, all I originally stated, which I thought was uncontentious, was that the Roman civilisation in Britain in the 5th century was trashed. Note that I did not specifically blame the Saxons for doing this. I am well aware that the civilisation had been mostly (not completely) built upon the money that came in to pay the Roman army, also on the commerce that resulted from unity with Europe. But I would say that invaders gave the 'coup-de-gras' to the civilisation because 50 years after the Romans left the cities (some of them) were still able to function. Having invaders roaming around pillaging, even if it is only occasional and sporadic, must have a bad effect on commerce. Having the same thing happening to your neighbours across the channel must have the effect of dislocating trade. This disruption of the economy would naturally have lead to falls in production and eventual loss of knowledge,built up over centuries and millenia. I would guess that the archaelogical remains found from the 6th century AD come to about the same as that found for the 2nd century BC; very scrappy and what there is, is of low quality. And PLEASE do not trot out the old argument that all their goods were of a perishable nature. From a thriving society, we do find SOME perishable goods, for example the shoes, cloth, socks, horns, bones, wood and the 'paper' (slivers of wood) found at Vindolanda. -
Message 33
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
Hi fascinating,
I appreciate that this has become a somewhat restricted conversation and it would be interesting to hear other points of view. It is strange how apparently uncontentious views in archaeology turn out to be highly debatable.
I can鈥檛 argue that Roman technology was not globally superior to Saxon, but what I was trying to express was the view that Saxon technology was more appropriate to the circumstances of 5th-6th century Britain. Some of my difficulties arise from your use of words which carry pejorative associations. You say 鈥榩lundered the goods of the Romano-British鈥 and 鈥榬oamed around pillaging鈥; I say recycled stone, glass and metal in ways that had been customary for centuries.
I think too that there may be elements of cultural imperialism in your views. We are a ceramic vessel using society, as was the Roman, but this usage is not inevitable. Other societies may simply choose not to adopt a particular cultural element. The fired Saxon pottery funerary urns, with their intricate incised or stamped decoration, were a complex product and were made by skilled craftsmen. They survived well enough to be found intact today in East Anglia and elsewhere. Early Saxon home produced domestic pottery is rare when compared to the vast amount of Roman. The fabric is certainly not as durable as kiln fired Roman fineware, and may be hard to separate from Iron Age fabrics.
It is reasonable to draw parallels between the 2nd C BC and the 6th C AD in terms of cultural level but do you really think the products of both were 鈥榮crappy and of low quality鈥? Some La Tene artefacts are fairly impressive and within a century the products of the late pre-Roman Iron Age in Britain are spectacular. The big problem with an intrusive civilization like the Roman is the tendency its study has to minimize the value of what came before and after. A tendency which, I鈥檓 rather afraid, you illustrate.
Regards, TP -
Message 34
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
So I am a cultural imperialist now?
I can see from your comment 'Other societies may simply choose not to adopt a particular cultural element' that I still need to drive home the point that I have already made in answer to this.
I have just finished reading Caesar's 'Conquest of Gaul'. In it he writes about the Germans (thank God for the civilised, because without them we would never know about how the uncivilised lived) and as far as I remember he says that they lived basically by cattle-rearing, and sought to live ever-ready to repel strangers by force of arms. The major tribe maintained a large, uninhabited area around their territory, all basically to ensure that they could be left alone to live exactly the way they wanted. One tribe decided to ban alcohol as it made the men weak. I think that archaeology has not been able to find much made by these people (they did start making iron, though), as almost all of their goods would have been perishable. So in the case of these people, it might be said that it would not be appropriate for them, at that time, to make or use articles, such as ceramics, glass vessels, exquisitely embroidered clothes etc. They might well have caused division in what was basically a very communal society. Even the Romans had an admiration for these people, Tacitus comparing favourably their proud hardiness against the effete city-dwellers of Rome, and I basically agree with him. There is certainly something to be admired about a people who maintained their national freedom and lived their lives without impositions from others.
But this situation manifestly did NOT apply to the Saxons. They left their ancestral lands and came here. While here, they did not all content themselves with merely tilling the land. It is on record that they did do some pillaging - sorry if you are unable to face these facts. You yourself admit that they tried to make pottery. The few Saxon graves we have found do have some artefacts that they could only have got from elsewhere. In the 'Life of St Germanus' it states that the Saxons and Picts made war against the Britons. The story says that Germanus was able to make them flee, and the victorius Britons were able to pick up the booty that the fleeing barbarian left lying around.
I emphatically reject any notion that the Saxons considered high-quality goods as 'inappropriate'. As with most people in most cultures in most of history, they, like you or I, can admire well-made pottery and other goods, which anyway are valuable and can be sold. If you entertain notions that they had no desire for these things, you are going to have to provide evidence of this. -
Message 35
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
I agree with fascinating鈥檚 description of the Saxons, they were after all raiding Britain and other parts of the Roman Empire before they settled down in Britain. They desired the wealth and expensive items that the Empire produced, which they were obviously incapable of producing themselves.
Obviously Roman technology and wealth far outstripped that of the Saxons, or any other Germanic barbarian tribes, but I would also claim that the Roman Empire was superior to the Saxons morally and socially as well.
Given the choice I would have chosen to live in the Roman Empire than in any equivalent Saxon social class. -
Message 36
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
Given the choice I would have chosen to live in the Roman Empire than in any equivalent Saxon social class.听
It would depend on the timeframe wouldn't it - turbulent beginnings, stable 'golden age' or collapsing end of empire.
One point though - how were the Romans more 'moral' than the Saxons (and Jutes and Frisians and Angles)?
They came to exploit these islands, they stayed because of the strength of their logistics (chop up one cohort - a month later another one comes) and they then dropped Britain like a hot potato and legged it back to Rome to safeguard their interests their when their empire crumbled. At least the Germanic tribes stayed and settled, using the land to live on not as a resource to be plundered.
How can any empire that produced Caligua and his ilk claim the moral high ground? They used slaves and employed mercaneries and their politicians seemed even more corrupt than ours. -
Message 37
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
Well, I should never criticize anyone who reads Caesar but he was describing a society 500 years before the one we are concerned with. Also I don't think we can look to Caesar to tell us about Roman pottery or wood-work, let alone the Saxon products.
I would like to think that Roman historians did admire Germanic tribes but they also had their own agendas. Caesar rather naturally wished to portray the inhabitants of Gaul as 'worthwhile enemies'. Tacitus was scarred by his experiences during the principate of Domitian and in 'Agricola' gives the independent Iron Age British some very good lines.
I am reasonably conversant with the small amount of post-Roman literature referring to Britain. but the extent to which it is 'factual' is somewhat debatable. It is true that the Saxons and Picts are described as the constant pillagers of late Roman and post-Roman Britain. In consequence one would expect Pictish and Early Saxon sites to be stuffed with the products of enthusiastic rapine. It's a little disappointing to report that this is by no means the case. Perhaps all the booty was left behind after St Germanus's 'Alleluia' victory?
I can't prove that the early Saxons viewed high quality pottery as inappropriate since negatives are never provable. But the situation is not so different from that operating in late Iron Age Scotland; here the Northern and Western Isles have rich pottery traditions, but mainland Scotland and Scandinavia do not. No one would dream of suggesting that the Scots and Norse were 'unable' to make ceramics just that they preferred metal, wood, or horn.
I prefer to drink coffee from pottery, wine from glass, and cut my cheese on a wooden board. Plastic and metal would do just as well - but just wouldn't feel 'right'.
TP -
Message 38
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
Hi EV,
Just as a matter of interest what is the evidence that the Saxons were raiding Britain? If you could tell me what you find so convincing it would give me an opportunity to present another point of view. I wouldn't deny that the Western Empire had many enemies but there is quite good evidence that Britain was rather peaceful when compared to Gaul.
TP -
Message 39
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
Firstly, how is it relevant to say that Caesar wished to portray the inhabitants of Gaul as worthwhile enemies, in the context of what he says about Germanic tribes outside Gaul? Anyway, his writing does not really show crass characterisation of Gauls or Germans, for example he says that the Gauls were easily swayed to either ridiculous over-optimism, or utter despair, depending on the vicissitudes of battle. He has a deal to say about the Germans, who he never really got to grips with, most of which is not relevant to whether or not they were worthy opponents. I only quoted Caesar to point out how the Germans lived, by way of contrasting the way the Saxons lived.
I take your point about the lack of goods in early Saxon graves, but how big is the sample? How many Saxon graves of 5th and 6th century date have been found? How would we know if they were there anyway, if they were not marked by a stone?
As to the Scots and Norse being 'unable' to make pottery. Well, I cannot make pottery - can you? But if I wanted to learn how to make it I can look up how, or ask somebody who knows. Now imagine you lived in a society that had no books. Also, there had been nobody in your society for generations who had made pottery. Would you ever be able to make pottery? Surely the answer is basically 'no'. (Possibly you could re-invent pottery, but you would be on your own). Thus, if we find that a culture did not make or use any pottery, it follows that they were as a culture 'unable' to make pottery. Of course virtually any adult, of any culture, can be taught to make pottery by someone who knows about it, but in some cultures, no such instructors existed. So we say that, as a culture, the Norse were 'unable' to make pottery.
If we can trust what archaeology tells us, since the retreat of the last Ice Age, most cultures have got by without making permanent artefacts, like pottery and glassware. Since most peoples around the world seem to want these articles, including us, I take it that these ancient cultures simply could not envisage making these things, or if they could, they never refined the firing process so that the goods would become generally useful. Knowledge and skills are fragile flowers, which have to be maintained by stable societies which set value to these skills, and ensure that they are passed down the generations. These skills can easily be lost.
We use the glazed pottery we do because it does not interfere with the taste of the food. The Chinese found the same. I could be convinced that wooden bowls and cups could actually be suitable for eating and drinking. Yes, that could actually be a good idea. -
Message 40
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
By the way I think it worth pointing out that the Romano-British had themselves, apparently, lost the knowledge of how to make pottery. After 410, almost nothing produced by them has survived.
-
Message 41
Posted by Jim Reuss (U10298645) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
Reg: Besides, what have the Romans ever given to us?
Commando Xerxes: The aqueduct?
Reg: What?
The comments about barbarians constantly at the gates and Saxons building in wood as opposed to stone are interesting thoughts, but one must factor in a time period as well to indulge in the speculation. How long would this Roman presence have lasted? 20 years, 100? I think that an extended Roman presence would have led to further infrastructure development using stone materials (assuming that the economy of Britain was stable or grew). Thus, there would have been more roads built, increasing the rate at which people and goods could be moved about. The growth of villages and towns an would also result from the economic stimuli of trade. -
Message 42
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
Hi fascinating,
I think it is understandable that the Romano-British lost the skill of making pottery since for centuries they had been supplied by centralised kilns operating on a virtually industrial scale. But mentioning then does raise another problem, that of identifying the sub-Roman British archaeologically. In East Anglia or Kent, if one was prepared to forget 50 years of archaeological progress, one could argue that the native British had been totally exterminated. But in the west there were regions that would not become 鈥楽axon鈥 for centuries; where are the British cemeteries and settlements? Some urban centres, like Bath and Wroxeter, may have maintained small populations. Some settlements may have been mis-identified as late Roman or, if they lack Roman finds, Iron Age. Christian British graves would not be attended. But all in all it is a puzzle.
Hundreds of early Saxon urn cremation burials are known, and many inhumations (such as Fingelsham in Kent), although more date from the 6th century than the 5th. The graves are not indicated by stone grave markers but they must have been marked at some stage since generally the graves do not cut into one another. In the modern era they are usually, like so much else, discovered by accident. Grave goods are noted from the Rhineland and Francia but they are not notable for the quantity of Roman material.
This is not a problem for me since I think that Roman Britain was in decline for decades before its notional end. Much valuable material may well have been carried off by the owners when they deserted their villas; precious metal may have been cut up to pay troops or keep allies faithful. Iron agricultural implements and a declining stock of Roman ceramics would have remained, but these were evidently not the high status material that a Saxon warrior wished to take to his ancestors.
TP -
Message 43
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
Hi TP
Just as a matter of interest what is the evidence that the Saxons were raiding Britain? If you could tell me what you find so convincing it would give me an opportunity to present another point of view
听
There is convincing evidence that the Saxons were raiding Britain for nearly 200 years before they settled in Britain in large numbers.
In around 270 AD the forts of the Saxon shore were starting to be built, the name itself 鈥淪axon shore鈥 seems to suggest one particular threat.
Forts are built for a reason, there must have been a threat and there may have been more than just Saxon raids on the Southern coast.
Then we have the historical works of Ammianus Marcellinus writing about the events around 367AD.
He certainly mentions Saxon raids.
鈥淒uring this period [Valentinian had just chosen Valens as Augustus] practically the whole Roman world heard the trumpet-call of war, as savage peoples stirred themselves and raided the frontiers nearest to them. The Alamanni were ravaging Gaul and Raetia simultaneously; the Sarmatians and Quadi were devastating Pannonia; the Picts, Saxons, Scots [Irish] and Attacotti were bringing continual misery upon Britain;鈥
and then later he says
鈥淚t will suffice to say that at that time the Picts (the Dicaledones and the Verturiones), together with the warlike Attacotti and the Scots, were roving at large and causing great devastation. In addition the Franks and Saxons were losing no opportunity of raiding the parts of Gaul nearest to them by land and sea, plundering, burning, and putting to death their prisoners.鈥
There are accounts of Saxon incursions in 397 AD and the famous general Stilicho comes to Britain to restore order.
There are major Saxon incursions during 408 AD and accounts of stern British defence in 409 AD.
So we have major Saxon incursions and mention of Saxon raids, along with a string of forts built to defend the southern coast.
I find that evidence compelling and I would suggest that the Saxons were after Roman wealth and goods, plunder and rape, all the usual barbarian desires! -
Message 44
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 28th February 2008
Hi EV,
Thanks. I hope I can convince you that none of this evidence is really worth very much. The term 鈥楽axon shore鈥 is only mentioned in one document, the notitia dignitatum. It is as likely to mean 鈥榯he shore where the Saxons are settled鈥 as 鈥榯he shore that the Saxons are attacking鈥. Putting federate troops in land needing resettlement or protection is a common late Roman practice.
The function or functions of the Saxon shore forts has never been ascertained. They look like medieval castles but they mostly contain no permanent accommodation for troops. It is likely that they operated in conjunction with naval forces but, with their high curtain walls and artillery platforms, they are greatly over-engineered for dealing with mobile pirates in large rowing boats. A greater number of small forts with mounted troops would be more appropriate for this task. The large forts might equally have had something to do with the pretenders Carausius and Allectus and their attempts to fend off fellow Romans.
Ammianus Marcellinus does mention Saxon involvement in a barbarian conspiracy, but the archaeological evidence of destruction around this period is not impressive (quite unlike the rebellion of Boudicca for example). You also have to remember that he was writing in the reign of the emperor Theodosius, whose father was the general who 鈥榙efeated鈥 the conspiracy. Talking up dad鈥檚 achievements might have been quite a shrewd political move.
Finally if the Saxons (and the Picts for that matter) were constantly and successfully raiding one would expect the products of fourth century Britain to be commonplace back in the ancestral homelands, and this really isn鈥檛 the case. Where did the stuff go?
It can hardly be claimed that there was no raiding at all but the few contemporary sources cannot be taken at face value. What cut the heart out of the Roman army was continual conflict between imperial pretenders, or the few able generals and their jealous imperial masters. I can鈥檛 honestly see that a few Saxons here or there made much difference.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 45
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Friday, 29th February 2008
Hi TP
I can safely say that you have not convinced me yet!
I have never been convinced about the idea that the Saxon Shore was called that because Saxons lived there, any archaeology finds could be the normal Germanic influence within the Roman army.
The evidence of 3rd century large scale Saxon settlement in the south of Britain is scarce at best, most evidence of Saxon settlement dates to the 5th century, long after the name Saxon Shore was used.
But even if the name is open to debate there can be no debate that the forts existed, they are still with us and were built for a purpose.
The fact that the forts also exist along the coast of Gaul seems to dismiss the theory that they were somehow a defence for a rebellious Britain. Their position and their size would imply that they were used as Naval bases and bases for mobile reaction forces. A perfect answer to Saxon raids, which were at times very large incursions and not just a few isolated boats looking to mug a passing citizen.
The position of the forts, their name and the historical records all point to Saxon raids on Britain from the late 3rd century onwards. Any other theory relies on dismissing large chunks of evidence or just dismissing the points individually without any similar unified answer.
Ammianus Marcellinus may have been continuing the usual historians trait of 鈥渂igging up鈥 the emperors family, but as usual he could not just invent history. Propaganda, if it was propaganda, has to be based on an element of truth, yes the barbarians are made out to be a bit nastier and the Romans are superior, but the propaganda had to be believable.
The events portrayed had to be based on reality, even if the conspiracy was no such thing but just different tribes exploiting weaknesses in Britain鈥檚 defences.
Archaeological evidence of destruction caused by raiding would be hard to find, maybe there is some evidence from the major barbarian incursions, but raiding and pillaging would leave very little archaeological evidence in the ground.
As for the evidence of plunder, I have no references to archaeological finds on the continent, any information or links would be very appreciated.
But what was being plundered? I cannot see Saxon warriors dragging off Roman tableware for the wife back home, or treating themselves to manuscripts and a bit of art.
The main commodities for a raiding party would surely have been gold, silver, grain, food, wine and beer and probably slaves.
Would any of these show up in the archaeological digs?
Gold and silver would have been traded for other items, the food and drink would have been consumed and slaves would not show up on the archaeology.
On your last point I would agree that any Saxon raids or even large scale incursions would have had little effect on the eventual demise of the Roman Empire, the main reason behind the collapse was indeed internal power struggles. -
Message 46
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 29th February 2008
Hi EV,
I鈥檓 perfectly happy if you feel that the name 鈥楽axon Shore鈥 is simply open to debate since I doubt if it will ever to be possible to be certain. To the best of my knowledge there is no other example within the empire of a shore being named after the people attacking it. The real problem is that I am very reluctant to accept the statements of late Roman writers without physical supportive evidence. You can tell I was not trained as a historian.
The strategic function of Shore Forts may also escape determination. By function I should write 鈥榝unctions鈥 since they may well have served several purposes at different times. I鈥檝e always been interested in this problem since spending a childhood near Pevensey. The crucial issue to me is the date of the Shore Forts. Pevensey is late and may easily have been constructed during the reign of Allectus. Your point about the Gallic forts is perfectly reasonable; my assumption being that Pevensey was constructed after the legitimate emperor recaptured the Gallic bases.
The oldest short forts may be as old as the 280s. If you believe that these were built as a defence against Saxon pirates then you have to accept that the raiding went on for the better part of 200 years. Well it鈥檚 possible, but I rather like the idea of the shore forts being defended bases for troops in transit and the assembly of supplies. That is not to say that the Romans didn鈥檛 build shore defences. The small late forts along the North Yorks coast, supported by cavalry based at Malton, seems a more plausible defensive system against sea raiders than massive constructions with artillery towers.
You have a point about the difficulty in finding evidence of raiding. But villa sites were not defended and don鈥檛 appear to have ended their careers in flame and destruction. Evidence of later Viking raiding is much more compelling with destroyed monastic sites in Britain and thousands of Ethelred鈥檚 silver pennies in Denmark. Mind you I quite like the idea of a raiding party with raiding party with gold, silver, grain, food, wine and beer and probably slaves. The Saxons would have had a hard row back to Jutland!
Best wishes,
TP
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 听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.