AD 43 And AD 1066

[WotWotius]

When Rome invaded Britain in 43AD, the indigenous Britons were subject to years of oppression. Military governments, financial swindles and burdensome taxation were all imposed in the region; the province would have to wait at least forty years until any sort

[docoflove1974]

Very interesting take on things...I wonder if attitudes towards the conquerers ('backward-looking' attitudes that is--those of the 'historians' in describing the conquerers) is central to this. Rome is a great and mighty empire...so, regardless of who they're conquering, they would have 'improved' the situation--regardless of the reality. The Normans were, well, French...I don't know too many who have described the French in a glowing review (although I could be wrong here).

 

Additionally, much of this pro-Classic attitude starts in Medieval and, in particular, Rennaisance times. It seems that anything Roman or Ancient Greek (in particular, Athenian) is viewed in a positive light...regardless of reality.

[P.Clodius]

I'm not going to comment on the whole of your thesis but I do have a couple of observations.

When Rome invaded Britain in 43AD, the indigenous Britons were subject to years of oppression.

I have to question this statement as traditionally, conquered territory tended to be governed in an inclusive manner. Military 'oppression' is not condusive to stability and inclusion. The romans use of military action where appropriate would have been active resistence, insurection, rebellion, and conquest. Military campaigns were expensive!

...and burdensome taxation were all imposed in the region;

I once read somewhere though don't ask me where or what as I don't recall. The average individual paid in taxes the equivelant of 1 days pay, that's 1 day out of a theoretical 355 days of a year. And for that they get everything mentioned in the "What have the Romans ever done for us?" sketch. Pretty good deal if you ask me, certainly less than they would have been taxed under their own leadership. And what's more, they knew it!

[WotWotius]

I once read somewhere though don't ask me where or what as I don't recall. The average individual paid in taxes the equivelant of 1 days pay, that's 1 day out of a theoretical 355 days of a year. And for that they get everything mentioned in the "What have the Romans ever done for us?" sketch. Pretty good deal if you ask me, certainly less than they would have been taxed under their own leadership. And what's more, they knew it!

 

If you read Tacitus' and Dio's accounts of the Boudiccan revolt you will get a very different view: they state that burdensome taxation, and the withdrawal of loans was a key reason for the rebellion of 60AD.

 

Additionally, archaeological further adds to the view of Rome instigating burdensome tax on the local Britons: various modius (A dry measure, normally used for grain) jugs have been found in southern Britain which are much bigger than the standard imperial size, thus suggesting that Britain's procurators coned the locals into providing more grain as a tax than they were supposed to.

[Pertinax]

Britain as a conceptual racial or national identity had no existence until the province came under Roman sway. The Gallic reality was of a Gallic/belgic hegeomony with tribal suzerainty imposed by the appropriate senior noble (male or female) exercising power withourt reference to the "Ocean" as barrier nor with any reference to any existing internal tribal dispositions. Prsonal , local power was all.

The Norman invasion was versus a roughly hewn nation state , though the Normans themselves are probably the best example of the early foundation of Nation States as "modern" political entities (Sicily, Principalty of Antioch for example).

Surely Victorian attitudes saw the concept of "Imperium" as a moral concept ( the "Rule of Law") and as any dynasty does, seek to legitimise by precedent .

[WotWotius]

Very true.

 

Would you say that the Normans in England receive too much of a bad press? Despite their ruthlessness, they did initiate another unique cultural phase within the island; the White Tower in the Tower of London is on of many examples of this new culture in practice.

Edited July 26, 2006 by WotWotius

[Pertinax]

That is a tough one to call, the process of infeudation of land holdings was thoroughly consolidated by them as an instrument of political/military dominance .In the sense that the feudal landholding tenures (in relation to tenant service ) became efficiently systemised, then this unpopular action was a profoundly dynamic impetus toward nationhood. Doesnt mean anyone liked them much though, the Harrying of the North was a thorough "crush, kill and destroy" progrom.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Harrying_of_the_North

 

I think the bad press was well deserved. Longbow is the man to speak on this subject, he is a great student of this era.The White Tower was a symbol of terror and physical domination, im sure you know that it was an incomplete project for a long period.

 

http://www.timeref.com/whttwr3d.htm

[Primus Pilus]

Do also keep in mind that taxation and freedom/privilege was very regional, tribal and treaty status dependent. One tribe, the Iceni as mentioned before (who opposed the Claudian invasion and revolted in AD 47) certainly had more burdensome arrangements, while another the Atrebates (a long standing ally of Rome dating at least from the time of Caesar) may have lived under Roman rule with quite different circumstances.

[Pertinax]

Very interesting take on things...I wonder if attitudes towards the conquerers ('backward-looking' attitudes that is--those of the 'historians' in describing the conquerers) is central to this. Rome is a great and mighty empire...so, regardless of who they're conquering, they would have 'improved' the situation--regardless of the reality. The Normans were, well, French...I don't know too many who have described the French in a glowing review (although I could be wrong here).

 

Additionally, much of this pro-Classic attitude starts in Medieval and, in particular, Rennaisance times. It seems that anything Roman or Ancient Greek (in particular, Athenian) is viewed in a positive light...regardless of reality.

 

The Normans were "in France" as we know it today , but their racial identity is derived from more Scandinavian roots. They could perhaps be charachterised as the first "modern" nation state builders , with Britain , Siculo-Norman Sicily and the Principality of Antioch as examples of their skill.

I conjecture that the profound difference between Roman and Norman invasive presence, was that Roman material wealth as an expression of culture (and concepts of justice and legitimacy) were woven deep into the Tribal Brythonic natives psyche and these tribes were like tiny petty kingdoms , minnows swallowed by a whale -The Normans were a quick,violent takeover bid at the top of an established corporate entity.

[WotWotius]

Do also keep in mind that taxation and freedom/privilege was very regional, tribal and treaty status dependent. One tribe, the Iceni as mentioned before (who opposed the Claudian invasion and revolted in AD 47) certainly had more burdensome arrangements, while another the Atrebates (a long standing ally of Rome dating at least from the time of Caesar) may have lived under Roman rule with quite different circumstances.

 

Also, the amount of taxation a native paid depended on how well developed the region was around them. For instance, Dio speaks of the Trinovates tribe (Essex area), having to foot the bill for the temple of Divus Claudius and various other buildings within Colchester.

[docoflove1974]

The Normans were "in France" as we know it today , but their racial identity is derived from more Scandinavian roots. They could perhaps be charachterised as the first "modern" nation state builders , with Britain , Siculo-Norman Sicily and the Principality of Antioch as examples of their skill.

I conjecture that the profound difference between Roman and Norman invasive presence, was that Roman material wealth as an expression of culture (and concepts of justice and legitimacy) were woven deep into the Tribal Brythonic natives psyche and these tribes were like tiny petty kingdoms , minnows swallowed by a whale -The Normans were a quick,violent takeover bid at the top of an established corporate entity.

 

I didn't realize that the Normans were so ethnically different from the rest of Gaul/France. I figured that they were Frankish-based like the rest.

[Pertinax]

The region was not a creation of the Normans , I think the church province of Rouen was co-terminus (more or less).The area had been basically gallo-roman with a few franks thrown in , the difference though was substantial in migration by Vikings -when consolidated by Rollo as a recognisable entity ,the area kept in close trade contact with Scandinavia and Northern Britain. Its history is an attempt to centralise a very warlike aristocracy by a series of "strong men".

 

Of course I am now treading towards the topic of Normans as Byzantine elite troops.....and their impact on that Empire.....

[WotWotius]

The Normans did however interbreed with the Franks/Gallo-Romans, so there where French to a certain extent.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I wonder if there isn't any good linguistic evidence that might speak to how thoroughly the Romans and Normans bothered to deal with the Brits. I seem to recall that most of the Latin influences on English date to the Norman conquest rather than the Roman one. If this is right, doesn't it suggest that the Normans treated the Brits as more equal than the Romans did? I mean, if the Romans were busier civilizing Britain than the Normans, why wasn't English latinized more during the Roman occupation?

[docoflove1974]

I wonder if there isn't any good linguistic evidence that might speak to how thoroughly the Romans and Normans bothered to deal with the Brits. I seem to recall that most of the Latin influences on English date to the Norman conquest rather than the Roman one. If this is right, doesn't it suggest that the Normans treated the Brits as more equal than the Romans did? I mean, if the Romans were busier civilizing Britain than the Normans, why wasn't English latinized more during the Roman occupation?

 

My area isn't Germanic, so I'm not gonna know for sure...but I believe you're right about Latin/Latinate influence being mostly post-Norman conquest. As I recall (sorry for the lack of sources on this), the language policy of the Normans was to use French/Norman in the court as well as much of middle-class business; from this there were many terms which diffused into English, but no true language take-over.

 

Now, Roman language policy, from what I have read, was: if you wish to do business with us, do it in Latin. If you wish to converse with us in the empire, do it in Latin. Your education is in Latin. Otherwise, speak as you please. In some areas, there was a conversion (I would argue over a long period of time) from the local speech to Latin (of some register); in others, there was (probably) more local identity with the local language, and speakers chose to maintain their language, albeit (probably) influence by Latin.