Richard Stanbery

After Boudica, we didnt see very much rebellion against Roman authority. In fact, by the time of the Roman withdrawl from Britain, it almost seems like the Celts in Briton had lost much of thier tribal identity.

Why is this?

Robert165

I'm no historiran but i'd hazard to guess it was roman goods and roman civilization that won them over?

sylla1

There were some late rebellions, and the island was in fact never entirely conquered; however, the bulk of the Briton population was indeed more or less Romanized, analogous to the other borders of the Empires.

The process seems to have been similar to other long-standing conquered territories all along history; Edward Luttwak made a thorough study. In the first phase (i.e, the generations close to the original conquest), the conqueror's rule was kept essentially by fear; in later stages, the interests of the local elites and at least a part of the lay people became naturally and intimately related to the Roman rule (in the worst case, if for no other reason at least for the inevitable consolidation of the local social and economic institutions under the Pax Romana); from now on, the local population was considering themselves more and more as Romans.

Even so, it was noteworthy that most evidence of the Roman civilization in Britannia essentially disappeared in less than a generation after the Roman retreat under Honorius.

Salah

Well, that's pretty much what I was gonna say, just you worded it better than I would have

Richard Stanbery

I dont think it would have if the Saxons hadnt put them to the swerd edgum.


The Romans were much more successful in pacifying Britain than the Americans were in pacifying the American Indians. Perhaps there was not the element of racism in Roman Briton as there was in America?

After all, the Roman Empire was a pretty cosmopolitain place. Men from all over were in the Legions, and the ruling class. Armenius was a German who rose to the rank of General in the Legions. So, perhaps the difference was the level of racism involved?

Rome required submission, yes. Some were killed or enslaved. But there was room for many those who cooperated to become part of the dream that was Rome, regardless of race. At least more so than in the American frontier movement?

sylla1

IMHO Spanish, French, British & Americans were mostly quite succesful in "pacifying" Native Americans.

In fact, NA were often used as allies in their mutual conflicts; e.g. the "French & Indian War" (the local version of the European Seven Years' War) was called so for a reason.

People like Jim Thorpe, Brett Favre & Will Rogers show that the NA are not out of the American dream.

Richard Stanbery

That is true, of course. But it just seems that the Roman Britons lost thier tribal identity rather quickly. The Natives in America never have, not that we want them to. But you know what Im saying.

By the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasions, there was no opposition to the Saxons by a Canti, or Iceni tribal force.

There were just Romanized Britons, or whatever they called themselves. Its like the old tribes of British Celts just disbanded sometime around AD 200 or so. They didnt even gain mention from thier own people after that. Its like thier tribal identity was completely lost long before the Saxons ever got there.

You cant hardly do that by force. In order for a tribal identity to evaporate that quickly and completely, the people of the tribes themselves must want to forget thier heritage. They just quit caring about thier tribal roots, it seems.

Salah

The Roman Empire, unlike the USA, the British Empire, etc. had little or no real racism, and none of it was official or promoted by the government.

The negative stereotypes of some peoples in the Empire (Germans as loud, violent drunkards, Africans as shifty liars, Syrians as sex-crazed perverts, etc) do indicate that there was some of what we would call "prejudice" in the lower levels of society. A military letter found, incidentally in Britannia, spoke of the "Britanniculi" - the "Pathetic Little Brits" - as being very inadequate as warriors. And the early Empire's prejudice against the Greeks is pretty well known.

All of that said, though, racism was not a major factor in advancement in Roman society. At least one of Julius Caesar's generals was a Spaniard, and Spaniards and Africans were rising high in political careers in Rome at the time. As of the reign of Claudius, Gauls and Britons were allowed to be promoted to the senatorial rank. Even just look at the biographies of Rome's emperors - we find lots of Illyrians, some Celts, at least one half-Sarmatian, a few Africans and Syrians, a Dacian or two, maybe a few Britons, at least one Arab...you get the point. If you want to include "breakaway" Empires, Zenobia of Palmyra may have been at least partially Jewish.

Even just the epigraphy of the province of Britannia attests to how multicultural Roman society was. In this province alone, native Britons and the descendants of conquering Roman legionaries were rubbing shoulders with Syrians and Pannonians. Various nations, religions, and presumably ethnic types all marched in the same cohorts, inhabited the same forts, used the same bath-houses, and married each other's women. I remember reading the tombstone of a Roman legionary in Britannia who purchased a British slave girl, presumably a POW, before releasing her and upon his discharge marrying her.

So, by the beginning of the 2nd Century, a Briton living in a "pacified" part of the Island was every bit as capable of advancement in Roman society as any contemporary Italian walking on the streets of Rome. And, for all inhabitants of the Empire, Roman and Briton alike, the military was the best place to go for the chance to forge a repuation, assuming one was not of good breeding...

Richard Stanbery

Good post.
Then we are agreed in that racism, or lack of racial warfare was one reason as to why the pacification of Roman Britain was more successful than the American westward movement?

Interesting in that the colonization of Australia went off easier as well, perhaps due to less racial tensions/ racial warfare.

I think the American conquest of the West was probably like the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain in the 5th century...pretty rough.
But even then, there were some places where intermingling and even intermarriage were more common in America. Just as there were places and times in Britain where Roman excesses were profound. Still though, I think the racial conflict card is key to undestanding this.

Agian, good post.

Toltec

There was quite a lot of rebellion.