- Nov 2008
If there were two potentates or ruling elites at enmity, the tendency is to augment the local forces with hired help, and this would have been either federates or mercenaries.My issue with mercenaries is that if I was an ertswhile civilian decurion trying to keep (for example) post-Roman Carlisle running, I'd be wary about inviting people in that I couldn't control.
Now concerning post Roman Britain, or, as archaeologists prefer to call it sub Roman Britain, we really need to discuss if the central authority fragmented, and if so when it happened. We are, furthermore, deliberating about events that took place from about the turn of the fifth century when the Romans left until the battle of mons Badonicus, which is supposed to have happened at the end of the fifth century. That is almost one hundred years, and what happened during those decades would no doubt have been nuanced, varying from region to region. There are many questions to be asked, Peter, and few definite answers. Did, for instance, some semblance of the Roman way of life survive longer in the South-West than in the South-West? And what happened in northern Britain? Did the economy collapse more rapidly in the East than the West? To even answer a few questions, we may have to start discussing the Great Conspiracy (barbarica conspiratio), and its effects on the Roman province of Britain. All of this is your area of expertise, but one I`m interested in because it saw the coming of the Anglo-Saxons as they were eventually called, a period of history which I have been interested in for a long time. This period is actually one I have neglected regrettably and perhaps wrongly.
By the way, Is Stuart Laycock a reputable historian, taken seriously by his peers, or is he regarded as someone on the fringe of academe?