Britain After The Romans

[Tiberius Sylvestius]

Firstly apologies to admin for the direct linking there! I didn't realise, it shall not be done again.

 

Yes Tobias many things degraded in Britain after the Romans left, technology most of all; The building quality was inferior, the coinage disappeared for several centuries, roads... ha what roads?

 

Things generally went down hill.

 

With regards to the coinage in particular as this is one very clear example of decline in technology. The preparation of dies was an art in itself, the greater the artistry the more complex the design and the higher the relief. After the Romans left the knowledge and tools of how to do this were 'lost' ad they had to start from scratch again. Thus you'll note why they are simplistic designs in use by the reign of the Anglo-Saxon kings in the 9th and 10th centuries CE. Portrait coins do exist but they are two expensive for my pocket thus i had to go for the Two Line Type non portrait varieties.

 

As for the latter coin, well the Stephen Penny was a better design in theory but the workmanship was sloppy, due to the moneyers not being that mindful about their jobs. Why this should be so i do not know. Afterall in 1120 the previous King Henry I had invited the moneyers to Winchester and several were castrated and mutilated for debasing the coinage and producing coins of inferior workmanship. So why the appaling workmanship returned within the next few years after that rather memorable episode is bizarre. By Stephen's reign though there was a civil war on and thus such shoddy workmanship can be expected.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

It is the Dark ages after all. I mean its money after all, they don't care how money looks. Money is just money.

[Tiberius Sylvestius]

It is the Dark ages after all. I mean its money after all, they don't care how money looks. Money is just money.

 

 

Not entirely true for the period. Whilst these days money is merely just that. From Imperial Rome through to the Early Modern period money was more than just money. Money was legitimacy, it was power, it was about showing the population who was boss.

 

Defacing coinage was considered a personal insult to the monarch/ruler depicted, moneyers debasing coinage was even more serious. Firstly they were making a profit at the government's expense by pinching the silver they hadn't put in the coinage and secondly back in those days coinage was accepted on weight. The density of silver and copper differs, thus if the coin was underweight (i.e copper substituting for silver), then the coin was not acceptable. If all the coinage is being produced like this then it leads to serious problems. Diminishing faith in the quality of the coinage led to hoarding the good quality stuff (Gresham's Law in action), and thus severe economic knock on effects that can disrupt trade because people selling things to you nation will not want the lower quality coinage, or they'll want more of it to make up for the decrease in silver content. So often you get trading switching to other nations that have a better currency circulating. Debasement also leads to inflation and consequently price rises. Throw in a bad harvest and you've got a major crisis. Which is exactly what Henry VIII's monetary policy of debasement led to in the 1540s. He made a nice profit by lowering the silver content of the money and using the spare silver to further his war campaigns, the poor people then starved to death.

 

Things have changed alot these days as we don't have intrinsically valuable currency any more.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Obvious, I never thought about that. Thank you Tiberius for correcting me.

[Tiberius Sylvestius]

No trouble, economics can get very complex indeed, i gave the most basic outline there as far as i understand it.

[Tobias]

It is the Dark ages after all. I mean its money after all, they don't care how money looks. Money is just money.

 

I agree with what Tiberius Sylvestius said, and would add that the debasement of coin (i.e. the reduction of the content of gold or silver in a coin) for a dominion meant serious trouble. The Byzantines lost their trade because they could not afford a gold coin of a high gold content, which led Venice to mint their own gold coin, which led to even more financial instablity, which led to the fall

[backfire22]

Mons Badonicus and Ambrosius Auerlianus...anyone have any specific details? Saxon and Romano-British troop positions? Casualties? Personality of Ambrosius and his family history? If any of this information is available to anyone I would love to see their primary source info.

[sonic]

Yes Tobias many things degraded in Britain after the Romans left, technology most of all; The building quality was inferior, the coinage disappeared for several centuries, roads... ha what roads?

 

Why do people always assume that buildings deteriorated -sure, they were no longer made of stone, but wood is equally as difficult to work in many respects and some of the larger wooden halls could have a lifespan of well over a century.

 

I agree that the disappearance of coinage was a backward step economically, but the question remains of how widespread the use of coins in Roman Britain was. Did a farmer in the middle of Cornwall pay another farmer in coins when he bought his pig? Who knows?!

 

Finally, a small point that I've never seen answered: it is still possible to walk along Roman roads that have not been repaired or remade in the last 2,000 years. Why couldn't the people of the 'Dark Ages' have used them? And if they could, why would they need to build new ones? And how long were they in use for?

[Northern Neil]

Finally, a small point that I've never seen answered: it is still possible to walk along Roman roads that have not been repaired or remade in the last 2,000 years. Why couldn't the people of the 'Dark Ages' have used them? And if they could, why would they need to build new ones? And how long were they in use for?

People of the dark ages did use them, and in Britain they were given their names by the saxon invaders. Watling Street was used to mark the boundary of the Danelaw, so it must've been still in use and very evident 400 years after the Roman occupation ceased.

[caldrail]

Apparently roman roads were falling into disuse very quickly, since they linked roman settlements that were also shrinking away. Many people would have reverted to the older paths in existence before the roman occupation since they linked the celtic settlement pattern and in many cases may have been more convenient. There was no maintenance on roman roads after the withdrawal either, although I accept that the quality of construction meant many stretches survived and in some cases still do.

 

Regarding coinage, without roman society the coinage had little value. We see this during the roman empire too - when a new emperor arrives violently the old coinage is sometimes buried to prevent any suggestion of loyalty to the old regime. The coins in effect become worthless regardless of any valuable metal. Something along those lines occurs after the romans leave. Within 50 years the entire administrative structure in britain has collapsed and the coins just don't buy anything any more. Where can you spend them? Who still makes them? With an ecomonical collapse the native population reverts to barter which still went on as it always had.

[Leguleius]

The conclusion that Britain was less Romanised than other provinces seems pretty convincing. Not only did coinage disappear in the C.5th, but so did pottery - a rather more basic commodity.

 

However, even in Frankia no coinage was minted until about 530. Before then Byzantine and Western Roman coins were possibly in circulation and there's a parallel for that in England:

 

In 1997, a hoard of 22 gold solidi, 25 silver coins or fragments of silver coins, 2 heavy gold rings and 50 small pieces of silver bullion dating to AD 333- c.461-70 was found at Patching, near Worthing, Sussex. The coins included two imperial coins from Ravenna (reign of Valentinian III) dated c. AD440+ and Visigothic coins from the reigns of Majorian (c. 460-1) and Libius Severus (c. 461+). The hoard was buried, possibly in advance of Saxon incursions, around AD475. This is evidence to show that earlier views were not correct and that Roman coins were still reaching Britain well into the 5th century. (Also from www.postroman.info)

 

So it is perhaps possible to overstate the 'differentness' of sub-Roman Britain.

 

As for the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the east, these guys really were 'proper' barbarians, not like the Christianised, semi-Romanised Franks and Goths. They had had no direct contact with the Empire and so presumably had no conception of coinage. Therefore it's not surprising that they only start to produce coins from about 600, the date St Augustine arrived in Kent from Rome with the unenviable task of teaching the English how to behave like civilised chaps.

 

Well that's my two sceata's worth,

 

Tom

[Senium]

The conclusion that Britain was less Romanised than other provinces seems pretty convincing. Not only did coinage disappear in the C.5th, but so did pottery - a rather more basic commodity.

 

However, even in Frankia no coinage was minted until about 530. Before then Byzantine and Western Roman coins were possibly in circulation and there's a parallel for that in England:

 

In 1997, a hoard of 22 gold solidi, 25 silver coins or fragments of silver coins, 2 heavy gold rings and 50 small pieces of silver bullion dating to AD 333- c.461-70 was found at Patching, near Worthing, Sussex. The coins included two imperial coins from Ravenna (reign of Valentinian III) dated c. AD440+ and Visigothic coins from the reigns of Majorian (c. 460-1) and Libius Severus (c. 461+). The hoard was buried, possibly in advance of Saxon incursions, around AD475. This is evidence to show that earlier views were not correct and that Roman coins were still reaching Britain well into the 5th century. (Also from www.postroman.info)

 

So it is perhaps possible to overstate the 'differentness' of sub-Roman Britain.

 

As for the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the east, these guys really were 'proper' barbarians, not like the Christianised, semi-Romanised Franks and Goths. They had had no direct contact with the Empire and so presumably had no conception of coinage. Therefore it's not surprising that they only start to produce coins from about 600, the date St Augustine arrived in Kent from Rome with the unenviable task of teaching the English how to behave like civilised chaps.

 

Well that's my two sceata's worth,

 

Tom

 

Well pottery making didnt completely dry up after the Romans left, but the stuff that the Saxons made was rough, inferior, and few and far between. And we must remember that a great deal of the Roman era pottery was actually made in Roman Gaul. The collapse of the cross channel trade led greatly to the end of high quality pottery in Britain, along with a general collapse of British made quality pottery as well. We might look to the funerary practices of the different cultures to see this.

Christianity didnt completely go away after the withdrawl of Rome. But the few surviving Christian Churches were led more and more by Irish monks, this being what is commonly called the "Celtic Church". St Augustine did try to bring these independent Churches into the Catholic fold, but without success. The Celtic style Churches were independently organized and small affairs of local significance. And so, St Augustine didnt reintroduce Christianity into Britain in 597 AD, he re-introduced organized Christianity.

It was still a fearful time, and road travel was dangerous. And so, communications were hampered greatly because of the brigands that dotted the landscape. Dark Ages indeed.

[Melvadius]

Well pottery making didnt completely dry up after the Romans left, but the stuff that the Saxons made was rough, inferior, and few and far between. And we must remember that a great deal of the Roman era pottery was actually made in Roman Gaul. The collapse of the cross channel trade led greatly to the end of high quality pottery in Britain, along with a general collapse of British made quality pottery as well. We might look to the funerary practices of the different cultures to see this.

....

 

I would take issue with part of your point regarding the production (and by implication distribution) of Roman pottery in Britain.

 

While granted that the Gaulish (and other continental) centres of production did have some influence on Britain, as can be seen from the individual pottery distribution maps available at this link to Potsherd website, Roman style 'Fineware' pottery production seems in a few instances to have continued in Britain until around the mid 5th century - long after direct continental imports had ceased.

 

Unfortunately what the maps cannot show is the extent to which pottery production continued although as you implied it probably was a shrinking market as Roman influenced financing and consequently infrastructure supporting it declined.

[Senium]

Well pottery making didnt completely dry up after the Romans left, but the stuff that the Saxons made was rough, inferior, and few and far between. And we must remember that a great deal of the Roman era pottery was actually made in Roman Gaul. The collapse of the cross channel trade led greatly to the end of high quality pottery in Britain, along with a general collapse of British made quality pottery as well. We might look to the funerary practices of the different cultures to see this.

....

 

I would take issue with part of your point regarding the production (and by implication distribution) of Roman pottery in Britain.

 

While granted that the Gaulish (and other continental) centres of production did have some influence on Britain, as can be seen from the individual pottery distribution maps available at this link to Potsherd website, Roman style 'Fineware' pottery production seems in a few instances to have continued in Britain until around the mid 5th century - long after direct continental imports had ceased.

 

Unfortunately what the maps cannot show is the extent to which pottery production continued although as you implied it probably was a shrinking market as Roman influenced financing and consequently infrastructure supporting it declined.

 

And demographics played a part in it as well. The collapse of Roman Britain also seems to have apparently happened in a time of depopulation. It seems like everything was hitting them all at once...invasions by barbarians, collapse of the monetary systems, plagues, internal strife and political instability, ruralization of the surviving populace, interruptions in the economy and food supply...and on it goes. The more we dig the worse it gets. No wonder the pottery industry took a hit.

And again, the funerary practices had been changing since Christianization, so less need for funerary pieces like burial urns, etc as fewer cremations were taking place.

One thing I have seen here is talk about the semi-fine porcelin mentioned here and there, as being something almost like China. Was it China?

Europe didnt have the good Kaolin clay to make China with, but later Europeans could make severe glaze ceramics. So, is there a school of thought that ceramics of the highest order might have been imported from Asia along the silk road?

Edited March 15, 2010 by Senium

[Melvadius]

And demographics played a part in it as well. The collapse of Roman Britain also seems to have apparently happened in a time of depopulation. It seems like everything was hitting them all at once...invasions by barbarians, collapse of the monetary systems, plagues, internal strife and political instability, ruralization of the surviving populace, interruptions in the economy and food supply...and on it goes. The more we dig the worse it gets. No wonder the pottery industry took a hit.

And again, the funerary practices had been changing since Christianization, so less need for funerary pieces like burial urns, etc as fewer cremations were taking place.

One thing I have seen here is talk about the semi-fine porcelin mentioned here and there, as being something almost like China. Was it China?

Europe didnt have the good Kaolin clay to make China with, but later Europeans could make severe glaze ceramics. So, is there a school of thought that ceramics of the highest order might have been imported from Asia along the silk road?

 

I am reliably informed that Europe does have good Kaoliin clay you apparently get it wherever you used to have marble [edit - although I believe it is normally derived from a degraded form of granite - specifically the feldspar found in granite] - Cornwall is full of it and other parts of Britain are full of good China Clay - e.g. the Potteries. What we couldn't make was a hard paste porcelein which no-one fiigured out how to make until the 12th/13th centuries AD. The main issue was that it wasn't used in the Roman period as they didn't have the kiln technology required to fire it to a sufficiently high temperature to create porcelein. As far as reasonable quality ceramics are concerned the Romans did have several sources of reasonable clay used for their finewares while there was still demand for them.

 

Regarding importing Chinese ceramics is concerned I haven't heard of any significant finds of ceramics from the period from within the Empire - that isn't to say none were but there would have been several problems. First and foremost the distance overland ceramics are bulk items and fragile long distance trade in ceramics tended to only take off along with long distance direct sea trade - often going as ballast rather than the primary cargoes because it was cheap at source. A few small items may have been passed hand to hand as special gifts but if so the Persians would probably have blocked onward trade as they were collecting them themselves as they tried to develop similar types of ceramics - but they didn't realy succeed until at best the 12/13th century onwards.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Melvadius