History Forum / General / British History / March 2004

Yes (to both questions)!

It's best to assume that the text books were a load of old rubbish when
they were written and that modern research has pushed them further into
being out of touch with reality:
1. There was a flourishing and complex society in Britain thousands of
years before the Romans. It had contacts with Europe (eg one burial near
Stonehenge was of someone born in the Alps - and that was at least as long
*before* the Romans as we are now *after* the Romans).

<pause whilst that one sinks in>
[probably a good teaching point]

In context it was *before* the Exodus and probably pre-dates Joseph and his
coloured coat.

2. People were Romanised in Britain and elsewhere by accepting Roman rule -
sometimes without even changing their own local kings; the tragedy of
Boudicca was that the Romans mistreated a formerly compliant client ruler
hence causing the rebellion.

3. It's dangerous to assume that the incomers were from Rome. Most Roman
soldiers and many administrators could be from all over the Empire - eg
Spain, Africa, Palestine or that the locals weren't also part of the Empire
and taking their share of the spoils locally and elsewhere in the Empire.
As in any Roman society there would be bottom of the heap slaves but these
could be criminals or captured enemies for mine slaves &c. Don't forget
that soldiers may well take local wives and settle down in Britain after
their stint in the army and have lots of little half-Spaniards,
half-Africans and half-whatever.

4. The Romanised Britain lasted for as long as the time from the Armada to
now. Lots happened.

5. Celts. You'll find that the text books are frequently hazy. This is a
warning sign and means that the authors of the books don't really know. If
I were teaching it I wouldn't give the people a name. I may mention the
'beaker' people because of the distinctive pots that are found and
emphasise that the Celtoi aren't 'British' but that some of the Celtoi
people from mainland Europe came over to Britain.

Those that did, wished to and presumably were capable of resisting,
and thus were the elite and their retainers, and retreated before the
conquerors.

Most of the books I read tell me that there is conflicting evidence about
what happened to the "Celts".
There has been little if any of their language that has passed into English.
This might fit into the scenario that those who stayed were the uneducated
and unarmed, with no way of influencing society without learning to speak
Saxon, and thus lose their culture. Perhaps like the North American Indians.
Archaeology has not provided conclusive evidence.
It has been deduced that wheel-spun pottery ceased after the Romans left.
I once posted a translated poem (from Welsh) in which the poet mourns
his reduced status, and yearns for the days in his Masters great hall
back in what must have been Somerset. Sorry that I cannot lay my hands
on it.

What you have been provided with is the Victorian version of history which
claims that we are almost solely Saxon, and this would make us closer to
our German Monarchy.

We are in fact a mongrel breed of "Celts", Anglo-Saxons, and Norse/Danish,
with a little sprinkle of "Roman" provincial thrown in, and have been
interbred
with many more peoples who have one way or another arrived at our shores,
throughout our history.
We are Europeans.
Thur

"Andrew Drake" wrote in message

It may be more accurate to say it is over-simplified rather than rubbish.
There are limits to the depth one can go to when teaching secondary
schoolchildren. The experts here are naturally going to find fault with it
because they know too much. It has, however, taken many of them a lifetime
to build up the corpus of their knowledge.

I think what you want to give kids is a general outline of history, admit it
is general, and encourage them to look into it more deeply as time and their
educations moves on. What you have to look out for are the
'misrepresentations' introduced by modern ideology. An example is
understanding that the Romano-Britons were so easily overcome after Roman
troops were withdrawn because they had, over the period of Roman occupation,
forgotten how to fight. The Anglo-Saxons would have had a far harder time if
they had invaded in the first century BCE. In short there is a potential
price to be paid for civilization and peace which modern ideology doesn't
care to admit. -the Troll

Well ... less run away, more that eastern Celts came under Saxon (and other)
rule while western ones still held out.

Careful here;  modern "revisionists" want everything to be Marxist style
"class struggle".  But in fact the early Saxons elected their war chiefs and
the chiefs then "retired" when war was done.  The early Saxon were,
relativly speaking, class free.  The truth is Rome collapsed from it's own
internal rot and the Saxons just filled the void.  Earlier, Rome, in it's
greatest days extended "citizenship" to conquered people building a strong
and Rome supporting middle class.  Only later, when the leadership became
self serving and then started warring with one another instead of "the
barbarians" did things come apart opening the door for Saxons and the rest.

It has been argued, and I buy it, that Rome's biggest problem was Socialism.
When the Emperor promised to feed everybody and provide circus for
entertainment the "middle class" was done.  Everybody became dependent on
the state and the only way the state could provide the food and circus was
by holding places like Egypt in subjugation.  Now, instead of advantages of
being under Rome, people became slaves to Rome.  I happen to buy this
argument

In the end the State needs popular support and Rome had lost it.

Regards,

Rod

I think it's important to distinguish between the culture of the
inhabitants of Britain, and their genetics. To what extent you can do
that with primary school children, I don't know, but if you bear it in
mind, you're less likely to be misled yourself, and if you're not
misled yourself, you're more likely to get it right.

1) When people say this, what they usually mean is that Celtic culture
was replaced in Britain with a fusion of that and Roman culture,
referred to as Romano-British (and which might have converged with the
Romano-Gaulish, Romano-Hispanic, etc. cultures which had perhaps
converged enough with each other to be considered simply Roman, if
Roman rule had lasted a few hundred years longer). That culture was
then replaced by Saxon culture, which was later replaced by Norse
culture in some parts of the country

2) When people say this, they usually mean that the genetics of the
population in the affected areas has changed, so that the original
population with Romano-British culture was replaced by a new
population with Saxon culture. This view was the standard one a
hundred years or so ago.

3) When people say this, what they (usually) mean is that the genetics
of the population hadn't changed much - a few ruling individuals had
been introduced, but the bulk of the population remained the
descendants of those who'd been there previously. This view is
probably the standard one now.

Clearly only one of 2 and 3 is right, and the other must be wrong, but
either would be consistent with 1, because culture and genetics are
not the same thing. That 3 is likely to be true,is supported by
investigations into the relationships of the DNA from Iron Age graves
and modern people in the same areas, though in some places there does
seem to be genetic evidence for a significant influx of new population
(but adding to, not replacing, the old population). That's why 3 seems
to be the current orthodoxy.

Pete Barrett