Talk:Romano-British culture

message: Could we rename this Romano-British culture?  As it stands, we have two adjectives without a noun.  -- Zoe
I thought about this when I first saw this entry. I don't know if I would agree to this wholesale change because (1) we need an entry that defines just what Romano-British means (e.g., a catchall for people who can be considered British during the period Roman influence was significant -- both inhabitants of the island of Britain, as well as of Brittany; and (2) we need an entry that narrates the history of the province(s) of Britain.
If I achieve my plan of writing the necessary entries, maybe we can reduce this entry to a single paragraph with a thoughtful set of links. -- llywrch
The term Romano-British is a genuinely accepted term so I'm not so how it could be renamed.  
I am uncomfortable with the line that many Romano-British left Britain.  A large scale migration (to Brittany) has never been proven and is highly discounted, and I don't know where the idea came that some migrated 'possibly' to Ireland and northern Spain.  This seems entirely fabricated because it fits into someone's idea of the extent of Celtic cultural influence. -- Enzedbrit
Is there a Romano-British people group, or is it simply considered a culture? --70.114.235.205 22:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The culture still exists, yes. It's alive and well in Wales & Brittany - Cornwall is attempting to revive its Romano-British culture via the Kernewek language. If a 'people' can be defined by their language, the Welsh & Bretons by virtue of their languages can be considered such Romano-British people, certainly. Homoproteus (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are simply Welsh, Cornish, Breton and British. Nothing Roman about it. The languages and cultures are clearly older than any Roman influence. 86.7.140.64 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: wondering where to find the stuff on real life 'arthurian' britain, e.g. maps of kingdoms in that period. i dont think its sub roman or whatever, where is it?
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdone (talk • contribs) at 15:56, 12 June 2007
I believe you can find that stuff from the sources that I have listed below because they highlight the stuff you are looking for. For example, the first link has a map where they show different sections of who rule the side of Britain. The second link includes the background of "Arthurian" and has a lot of detailed explanation Anuragngoel (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  where? 

message: The move was suggested above. I went ahead and made it, and fixed double redirects, for some consistency with Gallo-Roman culture and Romano-German culture. (I'm still not sure what this article has that Brittania and Roman Britain don't. But there are a lot of links here.) -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from "Romano-British" to "Romano-British culture" 

message: If anybody has an objection to my text, please specify what you think needs correction.  Please do not simply dispose of my good faith edits.
:IP, you've (to say the least) mangled Wikipedia's 3RR rule. STOP with the disruptive behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not concerned about the articles content. I'm concerned with your Wiki conduct. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections 

message: ::The article states that the Romans took British wives, but then says that the population remained mainly Celtic. If the Romans took local wives and had children by them, the population would therefore have become mixed Romano-Celtic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's extremely scant evidence that immigrants took local wives. Infact there's more evidence of Britons that joined Legions and Garrisons and ventured to other lands and settled there than there are of settlers marrying Britons. It's more likely the vast majority of migrants had families they brought with them. There's also the fact that the urban centres where the majority of Romans were found were sacked and destroyed many times over the course of the occupation and later fell into complete ruin when the Western Empire collapsed and the economy with it. Leaving the majority, if not practically all survivors the rural Britons. 86.7.140.64 (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: Only troops are departed,so I renamed it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legaledges132 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdrawal of Roman troops

message: The map "British settlements in the 6th century" requires correction "Britania" > "Britannia". Is there a request procedure? This map appears on a dozen or so pages. Pseudoneiros (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling error on map?

message: There's many parts of the page talking about the diversity of the cities and urban centres and calling many people migrants. I think this paints a strangely pro-Roman attitude to what was in every way a military occupation, that was defended against as such by the natives. The Romans were not peaceful settlers, they attempted to kill and destroy native culture. They failed and throughout the occupation they were removed, returned and so on. Many times there were revolts and Boudicca as an example is said to have killed tens of thousands (60,000?) in the urban centres where the vast majority of the occupiers were, along with whatever minority of collaborators lived with them. Then the urban centres collapsed when the WRE did along with it's economy, leaving I would argue very little if any of the occupiers and their collaborators with them. 
Military Occupation that happens to have non-combatants either brought along or trying to exploit opportunities in the land are not what I'd called a settlement or migration. Especially when it seems none of the settlers survived or remained. 86.7.140.64 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diversity/Occupation 

message: Just suggesting that given the native romanised celtic britons cultural area extended up to the Antonine Wall, possibly a bit further north to include the volcan with a buffer of friendly, for the most part, local lowland celtic tribes between the wall and the bigger mountainous areas of the highlands where the really agressive tribes came, down the glens, from. 
Indeed the huge, and bespoke for the area, "glen-blocking" "Gask Ridge" fortifications, all connected and with a legionary fortress (the largest and most significant type of roman 'castra') at the eastern end where the lowland area begins around perthshire, speaks to a huge commitment to pushing the Roman border northwards and a not insignificant presence in Scotland in the first place.
Now tl;dr point is; 
I'm, honestly, a bit astonished that there isn't even a single mention of the Roman held (and significantly influenced to enough of an extent to be notable) areas in Scotland and the sources especially evident in the maps seem to specifically focus on England specifically without any acknowledgement of this at all in the article. 
It may even speak to an unconcious bias in the academy / literature on this issue. Who knows. Ultimately though I believe whatever the case may be, there is some mertit to my core point.
That the cultural area of the romanised celtic britons extended up to, *at least* (when certain things are considered) the antonine wall with the early romano celtic iterations of both glasgow and edinburgh (among other settlements of varying sizes) as anchor settlements at either side of that wall and the single main artery roman road that came up through lothian towards and along the wall. 
P.S. 
not to mention other things like the roman temple ( that became known as Arthur's O'on ) that survived to the 18th century only to be destroyed so the land owner could reuse the stone work for a dam or whatever. which had antiquarians of the time understandably apopleptic...
and that map about coin finds? i mean come on...
theres so much that a lot of folks understandably perhaps, are unaware of, that is fascinating about this part of the subject.''
ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 12:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central and Southern Scotland deserve a mention surely...