Talk:Roman Britain

message: As I wrote about the citizen questions above, I thought of another important topic for the article.
# Were many native Briton commoners made citizens of the Empire?
# If so, how were their status inequal to those of Roman citizens?
# How about the status of those (partially) Romanized Anglo-Saxon royalties?
# Approximately how many Romans immigrated to Britain during this time?
--Menchi 23:41 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Good questions. Based on my reading, the best possible answers are:
# The town-council members of certain classes of towns by Roman practice would be made citizens. Also, a number of natives whose patrons were able to obtian it for them -- some of the local Celtic ings might receive this gift (IIRC, Togidubnus was one). But then around AD 205 the Emperor Caracalla made all inhabitants of the Rooman Empire except for slaves citizens. The actual percentage of Roman citizens until that year is unknown, & would be based on guesses of how many citizens there were in Britain, & how many people lived on that island.
# The non-citizens in Britain were called peregrini, & lived by their own laws. The principal handicaps were that they could not own land with an Italic title, could serve as a Legionaire in the army (although they could serve in an auxiliary unit, & be made a Roman citizen upon discharge), nor could they inherit from a Roman citizen - but I may be wrong about the last point. In short, for the vast number of British inhabitants who were peasants tied to the soil, there would be little difference in their lives whether they were citizens or not.
# The term "(partially) Romanized Anglo-Saxon royalties" is somewhat nonsensical. By & large the Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britain after the end of the Roman period. A few were settled in Britian as foederati, but exactly who they were & where they lived is extremely hypothetical. (At least one archeologist has suggested that some early Anglo-Saxon settlements in the Thames valley around Oxford may have been foederati, but I haven't kept up with the current secondary literature to know if this is still considered possible. The early emperors of the Byzantine Empire did influence some of the Anglo-Saxon kings (I seem to remember Edwin of Deira using a standard copied after a Byzantine model, but I would have to re-read Bede before I added it to the Wikipedia.)
# The number of Roman immigrants is also debateable. First one would have to define
* What is meant by "Roman immigrants" - are we talking about people from Rome alone, Italy, or anyone who is a citizen, or anyone from the rest of the Empire?
* How do we count the number of non-military immigrants? Obviously traders came to Britain, some to settle, some to merely make extended visits; also aristocrats from the rest of the Empire would send factors to manage their business interests in the island; there would also be a number of camp-followers who came with the military. But I'm not sure if there is any way to estimate the number of people who came to Britain to settle, &, say, become farmers -- or even determine if more than a negligible number did so.
* The number of soldiers who came with the invasion & stayed there is easier to estimate: while Claudius deployed 4 legions & associated auxiliaries to conquer Britain, one legion was later transferred to the other frontiers & for most of its history Britain had 3 legions stationed on it. I've seen estimates of 30,000 to 45,000 soldiers present in Roman Britain.
As you see, Menchi, there's a lot of guesswork involved answering these questions, & I'm only menitoning the problems I can recall off the top of my head. I could have worked more of this information into Wikipedia, but I was just happy enough to write an article with some kind of logical order to it, & call it good enough, so I could pay attention to other topics that lacked even this much treatment. (And these topics might fit better under the article Romano-British, which I consider would discuss the social & cultural history of the people associated with Roman Britain.) --llywrch 17:41 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
Do we really need a list of "Romano-British settlements" here, when we also have an article of Roman Place Names? I don't see the point of this duplication. -- llywrch 02:59, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Citizenship and inequality

message: This page overlaps considerably with Roman invasion of Britain.
Perhaps they should be combined? (I posted a corresponding
comment on Talk:Roman invasion of Britain. Fpahl 16:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  overlapping page 

message: According to the Wikipedia article Roman conquest of Britain, Octavian (Augustus) threatened to invade Britain, but called off his invasions when the Britons "came to terms".  The same article states "According to Augustus's Res Gestae, two British kings, Dumnovellaunus and Tincomarus, sent supplications to Rome during his reign, and Strabo's Geography, written during this period, says that Britain paid more in customs and duties than could be raised by taxation if the island were conquered."  
This has the ring of truth, and it is at odds with this article's statement that after Julius Caesar's invasion, "The British tribes were not to hear from Rome again until Claudius's permenant invasion and occupation centuries later." Also, the timespan between Caesar's invasion (54 B.C.) and the conquest (47 A.D.) is just 101 years. Consequently, I have just changed this to read "The British tribes remained independent of Rome until Claudius' permanent conquest and occupation a century later." Marco polo 02:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Between Caesar's invasion and the conquest 

message: Compare the size of Roman Greece to Roman Britain articles. How ridiculous, did Britain contribute anything to the Empire? Not really. Yet Greece was the basis of what is referred to as Classical Roman Culture.
:But the Empire contributed quite a lot to Britain. If you're interested in and knowledgeable about Roman Greece, then share your knowledge and expand the article. --Nicknack009 19:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roman Britain is quite a distinct and very significant area of the discipline of classical history. Second, Roman Britain was both a rich source of commodities for Rome, and also quite a burden on Rome's military manpower. -- GermanicusCaesar (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Compare

message: I've removed the sentence "Julius Caesar describes the Britons as being descended from the Belgae, a Germanic people ([De Bello Gallico]] v.xii and ii.iv)" from the "Sub-Roman Britain" section partly because it doesn't belong there, and partly because it's plain wrong. Caesar does not say the Britons were descended from the Belgae. He said in relatively recent times there had been some Belgic settlement in Britain. It's also wrong to say the Belgae were unequivocally "Germanic". "Germanic" is a linguistic classification, and all the evidence shows the language of the Belgae in Gaul and Britain was Celtic. --Nicknack009 08:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "That the ancient Britons spoke a Celtic tongue" is the established consensus of historical linguists. Stop trolling. 
--Nicknack009 07:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hebrew is Semitic - there is no relation between it and "modern Welsh" or any other Celtic language.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britons "descended from the Belgae" 

message: The following fact should be removed as it appears to be based upon an error made by the scholar who first attempted to translate this tablet:  "A letter found in Bath, datable to ca. 363, written in Wroxeter by a Christian man called Vinisius, warns a Christian women called Nigra of the arrival of Bilonicus, describing him as a canem Arii, an 'Arian dog', indicating that the struggle between orthodoxy and heresy was present in Britain as elsewhere in the empire."
The footnote provided following this item in the article leads to a paper that says the entire story about Vinisius, Nigra, and Bilonicus was a mistake perpetuated by an over zealous scholar who attempted to read the tablet upsidedown.  Tomlin, R. S. O. (1994). "Vinisius to Nigra: Evidence from Oxford of Christianity in Roman Britain" (PDF). Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100: 93-108. Retrieved on December 13, 2006.  Here is a link to the document above: http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/1994/100pdf/100093.pdf
--Jjhake (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vinisius, Nigra, and Bilonicus never existed 

message: The translation of Noviomagus as 'New Market' by an editor of this page is currently inconsistent with the translation 'new field' on the Noviomagus_Reg page itself and also with the article on the meaning of word magus (in brief: astrologer; astronomer; magician (derog.); trickster).  I have placed -fact- tags on both editors offerings, for the time being. 
The fact that Nijmegen is Dutch for 'new market' (if so) is not disputed (by me) at this point but it's as if it is being offered to support a theory which isn't strong enough in its own right (whilst lacking a citation) and, other than in that role, it is not relevant to the main article and should be removed.  
As an additional complication, at the moment there is a redirect from Noviomagus Regnorum to Noviomagus Reginorum but I will restrict all discussion about that to the Talk:Noviomagus_Reginorum page. EatYerGreens (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: SORTED - thanks Doug (for fixing both pages) EatYerGreens (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, slight panic as I thought I might have given Wacher away, but I found it! Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of Noviomagus? 

message: I've corrected this section and provided some decent sources ('snails' and 'nettles' was simply wrong, as they were in Britain before the Romans, it was only specific species that they introduced). But this still needs enlarging, eg Roman engineering made changes, farming made changes, etc. Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for improving this section and removing the errors. I agree it needs enlarging. By engineering do you mean roads, bridges, aqueducts and towns? Obviously there is a point when this moves from environment to economics etc. I will see if I can find anything useful.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, including the road network, woodland clearances  etc. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  For information on Roman changes to the British environment, try Volume 1, Part 2 of The Agrarian History of England and Wales, edited H.P.R. Finberg & published by Cambridge Press. If my memory serves me right -- it's been about 20 years since I read it -- Finberg provides a list of trees & vegetables that the Romans introduced during their rule. Another source would be W.G. Hoskin's The Making of the English Landscape; his Midland Peasant focusses more on the medieval period. -- llywrch (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental changes 

message: In the article it says "former senator" in the provincial gov. section.  In ancient Rome becoming a senator was for life unless kicked out, and that would probably not be the kind of man governing the province of Britain...  I would suggest checking on what a governor's past credentials would be.    K2mac (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that is an odd comment -- although the rest of the statement is correct. I have amended the passage accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Senator 

message: But to preach to all the Name of Jesus, to teach about His marvellous deeds in country and town, that some of them should take possession of the Roman Empire, and the Queen of Cities itself, and others the Persian, others the Armenian, that others should go to the Parthian race, and yet others to the Scythian, that some already should have reached the very ends of the world, should have reached the land of the Indians, and some have crossed the Ocean and reached the Isles of Britain, all this I for my part will not admit to be the work of mere men, far less of poor and ignorant men, certainly not of deceivers and wizards.
Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica (before 311 AD), Book 3, Chapter 5  AJRG (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eusebius 

message: Meanwhile these islands, stiff with cold and frost, and in a distant region of the world, remote from the visible sun, received the beams of light, that is, the holy precepts of Christ, the true Sun, showing to the whole world his splendour, not only from the temporal firmament, but from the height of heaven, which surpasses every thing temporal, at the latter part, as we know, of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, by whom his religion was propagated without impediment, and death threatened to those who interfered with Its professors.
Gildas (c.504-570) De Excidio Britanniae, Chapter 8  AJRG (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They both refer to the arrival of Christianity in Britain.  The Eusebius quote can happily be referenced, and a following passage refers to the Domitian persecutions if that is required. This Gildas quote is a bit startling, dating the arrival before 37AD.  Written five hundred years after the event, it perhaps counts as myth.  Might be worth a mention, nonetheless.  AJRG (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gildas 

message: Rich Farmbrough, 03:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Moonraker (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: In Our Time

message: Could you please explain the reasons for removal rather than simply removing it? It was unclear from the edit summary.--SabreBD (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you not see an improvement to tyhe article?MacStep (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No I can't. Perhaps you could offer an explanation. It is usually considered incumbent on the editor making the change to something long standing under WP:BRD.--SabreBD (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of British Isles History infobox

message: I'd like to suggest that it makes little sense to place "AD" after the date. "AD" means Anno Domini, "In the year of our Lord." If we're going to use "B.C." and "AD," then respect what the term means. To say, "2011 in the year of our Lord" makes no sense; it does make sense to reverse it. The fact that it happens frequently doesn't really change the fact that it doesn't make sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinFox (talk • contribs) 02:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It may seem so to you but to me and I suspect to many other readers 2000 AD seems more natural. This may because I gave up Latin at age 16 but kept on doing maths and science, so it looks more like a scientific or other unit to me than an abbreviation. There's also the matter of consistency with BC, which short for "before Christ" needs to go after the number. Probably more readers know that than "Anno Domini" again as it requires no knowledge of Latin.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant guideline is WP:ERA. Which states that "AD may appear before or after a year". I would suggest since a precedent is already established it should be left as it is.--SabreBD (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

text: you can discuss and propose changes to policies on their talk pages, so in this case Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. But I would caution that the policy is unlikely to be changed: I have not been part of previous discussions but it is clear from the policy at WP:ERA that it is the result of quite a lot of work and discussion by editors considering all aspects of it. There would need to be very good reason for it to be changed.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Date Format

message: I chose to change the language from "the region" to "the former Roman province," as A Scotland was never really under Roman rule and B Scots Gaelic is also a living minority language similar to Welsh. The fact that the name of the former Roman province eventually became the name of the geographic island does admittedly invite confusion. Chris-Gilmore77 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy

message: In the lead is this sentence: "In 40 AD, Caligula assembled 200,000 men at the Channel, only to have them gather seashells." Is this literally true, or just a metaphor for doing nothing? Either way, it should be mentioned and explained in the rest of the article. It was added in a February 2015 edit by . --Usernameunique (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like a metaphor, but the Cambridge Ancient History suggests this anecdote from Suetonius (if he can be believed) may have represented Caligula's symbolic victory over the sea. I have clarified and added a reference. BabelStone (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caligula gathering seashells? 

message: reverted my deletion of text and image relating to King Arthur and changed the text to 
:Scholars generally reject the historicity of the later legends of King Arthur, which seem to be set in this period. It is sometimes popularly known as the "Age of Arthur" after this figure.John Morris, The Age of Arthur (1973) is his title for a popular history of the British Isles from 350 to 650. 
I do not think this is satisfactory. The statement that the historicity of Arthur is rejected is unreferenced, and Morris is not a reliable source. I suggest 
:Historians generally reject the historicity of King Arthur, who is supposed to have resisted the Anglo-Saxon conquest according to later medieval legends.
The image of Arthur should be deleted.
Dudley Miles (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be a no-brainer. Of course we can't use Morris. And the image doesn't belong. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting one to navigate. Obviously we're striving to the best standards, but given our audience is a general one some acknowledgement of Arthur is worth including as people may be coming to this article with him in mind. I wouldn't want to spend too long on the topic, just a couple of sentences, so I do think that having an image of Arthur (added in 2014) gives it more emphasis than I think is necessary especially as the caption isn't as carefully worded as the text in the main body of the article. I'm largely happy with Dudley Miles' suggested wording, but it feels like it doesn't quite flow with the existing text. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

text: As there was some broad agreement here, I've subbed in Dudley's wording and removed the image. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

text: The "legend of King Arthur" holds a prominent place in British cultural history and has provided the source for much art, music and literature over the centuries. Given the space devoted to Wikipedia articles on (say) Taylor Swift, it is surely a legitimate topic to consider, not least in terms of its likely (albeit probably fictional) origin in early post-Roman Britain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur 

message: I just wonder if there is any evidence of a public feeling of being occupied like in 275 AD. Also - Great Britain never returned to be what it was before the occupation. It was an occupation to begin with. But after a couple of generations, very few (if any) knew how it had been 150 years earlier. 83.250.73.248 (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Occupation" - during 367 years ? 

message: This wording implies it is immenient that English no longer remains the official language of Britian. A strange sentence and out of character with the rest of the page. 82.132.187.200 (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current spoken language.