Talk:End of Roman rule in Britain

message: I don't like the title of this.  It seems to presume that there was a clear distinction between the Romans and the Britons, and the Romans went leaving the Britons behind.  As such it panders to a rather crude 1066-and-all-that vision of the Roman Empire as being similar to European colonisation in eg Africa. What really happened was rather more like a colonisation of settlement, as with the English colonisation of North America or Australia - and over a much longer period as well. It is true that Michael Jones has argued strongly that Romanisation was in some sense a failure in Britain - but this is an academic debate and needs to be reflected in Wikipedia.   If we have Roman Britain and sub-Roman Britain, do we really need this as well? Mark O'Sullivan 18:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just found this article and in answer to your question Mark, no, I think we don't. There does seem to be a decent;y-sized group of users interested in Roman Britain and the periods immediately before and afterwards. Maybe a Wikiproject, or at least a place to discuss our strategy in covering the subject would be useful? adamsan 23:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good title to me. Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Content of article

message: In particular, do we need the section on Geoffrey of Monmouth's fantasy writing? I'd suggest that this needs to be a See also at most. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially as the article is pretty pathetic at the moment, it's completely undue weight. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove Geoffrey

message: My respects to Tataryn77's reorganization of several weeks ago, but I've tried to let it "set" and it never seems to "gel" as something better than what it replaced. The compression of sections and paragraphs seems to blur significant points. In particular, Magnus Maximus was significant to the future of Britain, as Roman rule ended in most of Britain through his actions, and he is considered the starting point for several royal dynasties; so I think it appropriate to separate him (383–388) from the imperial choas of later "usurpers" rather than bunching everything into one section.  Also, the map applies to the full period of the article topic, so moving it to a section covering only part of the period doesn't seem the best way to go; and the reorganization didn't keep other images in the appropriate places. Any objections to some restoration? It is a pure organization matter, as the text is the same either way. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem just try to keep things comprehensible.--Tataryn77 (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Tataryn77, I will do that shortly. If I get it wrong or it seems to lack something that is needed, please let me know. I think that from a Rome-centric perspective, compressing things was reasonable, as the departure from Britain was a barely noticeable event meriting little notice at the time. The event looms much larger from a Britain-centric perspective, where the event had a major impact on future events. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reorganization 

message: I hesitate to put this here, but in Australia there is a deeply held idea that the inhabitants of Roman England (sic) were Anglo-Saxon. I even heard a university lecturer say that the Romans subdued the Anglo-Saxons in England but had more trouble with the Celtic Scots and Welsh. He did not like being corrected. I also read in a text book that "in 410 the Romans returned England to the Anglo-Saxons".
With the decline in education in this country, there is some evidence that this myth is spreading here. In one Wikipedia discussion someone asserted that "the British invaded Wales" in the (?) eighth century.
I'm not sure how much this matters, but it adds to the "England=Britain=England" myth, endemic in Australia and possibly growing here. Poshseagull (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A look at Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain (which may have been retitled again by the time you read this) might help - and inform your lecturer as well.  If the textbook said what you say, it's certainly wrong. Basically, the conventional view (as I understand it - I'm not an expert) is that, although there were some Saxon incursions in the Roman period, they arrived predominantly after the Romans left, from the 5th century onwards.  However, there are academic debates over the process (that is, the extent to which it was a violent invasion as against more gradual cultural assimilation), and over whether there were already any Germanic language speakers living in (what later became) England during the Roman period.  There's a continuing discussion on the talk page of Anglo-Saxon England about how this is covered.  See also Britons (historical) for an overview of the pre-Roman inhabitants.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

text: With the greatest respect here no, there were not. There is no direct evidence that Angles, Saxons or Jutes served in Britain under either Roman or British Post-Roman administration. The Notitita Dignitatum mentions one cohort of Frisians (next door to the Jutes but racially different), as well as Batavians, Dacians, Dalmatians etc. No Saxons are mentioned, nor are Angles. This is a crucial omission. Whereas the Saxons are named as raiders in 290, 367 and 370AD. There is no evidence that Britons 'fled' either. On the contrary, in 491AD Anderida was sacked by raiders and the Britons killed. If we are to keep Wikipedia a useful resource we must stick to the facts. Kindest regards VeryLargeCommercialTransport (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Folk Myth

message: The article doesn't contain a single link or mention that I can see to anything about Germanic presence in Britain before the end of Roman rule, or what happened next. Very odd. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing linkage 

message: Some commentators still seem to be unaware of the existence of the Vindolanda Tablets and the Bloomberg Tablets.
--dunnhaupt (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Documents instead of Guesswork]]