Talk:End of Roman rule in Britain

Content of article
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)
 * 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)

I've added an tag to the article. Given the growth in WP content since the above comments were added in 2005, I think there's scope for greatly expanding this article now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with O'Sullivan article title is ""very original"",after 400 years of Roman presence is hard to digest that there was a clear distinction between the Romans and the Britons (as in South Africa under apartheid)--Altro21 (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The title is a bullshit,there s no reference to who or what would leave,please rename it "end of roman rule", as all other non-english wikipedia does--Spacearea123 (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the idea of a rename to "End of Roman rule in Britain", or something similar. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good title to me. Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove Geoffrey
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)
 * 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)

Article updated, proposed move
I've replaced the current article with one more focused on the historical events surrounding the article topic.

Reading this talk page and noticing how lightly this article is watched, if it seems uncontroversial, I'll move the article to the title suggested above, End of Roman rule in Britain. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No objection to moving the page, and as a whole I think the article is a big improvement. But I question the map, which seems to me almost to epitomise synthesis - which is not what we're supposed to be doing.  And, it may be just a stylistic point, but personally I hate all the white space!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The map states its sources in the title box, and if you click on it you can see where the information comes from, right down to the page numbers. Could you be more specific regarding synthesis? The map is intended to be an accurate description based on reliable sources, not a synthesis or POV.
 * As for the white space, I don't care for it, either, not sure how to make things better. Part of the problem, I think, is navboxes that take up most of the page and squeeze everything when they are "shown". Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the map - but surely if you're aggregating information from different sources, it's synthesis...? But it's not something I'm going to make an issue of.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Per the citation info on the file, the "region of Romanization" and town locations are from the same source and portray what has been learned from archaeological research; the locations of Irish settlement in Wales are from the cited image, which also has detailed specification of where the information comes from ... while those are different sources, they aren't combined inappropriately (or so it seems to me so far), as you can see from the in-line article citations (which contain various reliable sources all saying the same thing: that this is the time when those settlements were made). The other annotations on the map (Niall's raid, possible Irish sack of Wroxeter, Saxon and Pictish raids) are all from reliable, cited sources in the article text, all saying the same thing: that this is the time when those events occurred.


 * If it still seems like synthesis to you, then please say so, no offense taken. As I said, my intent was an accurate and intellectually honest representation, not the collection of disparate information that is aggregated inappropriately. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just aware of discussions on other articles where combining sources like that has been thought of as presenting a problem. If it's not a problem here, that's fine.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It could be seen as a problem but I don't see why it should be. To indulge in wikilawyering for a bit, synthesis is putting two items together to make a third point, a deduction or inference. The map merely presents a number of items without drawing unsuitable inferences. Thanks to Notuncurious for a good piece of work on the map and also on the rewrite. I'm sure we can find some way to get rid of the white space. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've asked at WP:Help desk. Good work. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, they are appreciated. Reversing the collapsible navbox and the image saved one line of text, and that was only because I originally entered a "newline" after the navbox instead of starting the text on the same line; so no solution to the annoying white space yet (but the effort is appreciated). Oh well, so it goes. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've restored it to the fix that was made before you did the above, isn't that better? Dougweller (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks okay this way, probably a matter of preference in part. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent reorganization
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)


 * No problem just try to keep things comprehensible.--Tataryn77 (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

Folk Myth
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)


 * 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)

In reply to the above statement. There were Angles and Saxon serving in the Roman army and based in Britannia pre the migration period, indeed burials have shown that there were Germanic (probably Frisians and Saxons) peoples serving in the Roman army based in Britain as early as the 3rd century AD. With regard to wether or not it was an outright invasion instead of native assimilation, i do not believe this for one minute. I go for the invasion theory. Minorities (and that is what some people think the Anglo Saxons were) do not come in and change the very fabric of a nation, if it did then we would be called Normandy inferior instead of England and our place names would all be French. The Romano Britons fled into the mountains, west (To Cornwall) North West (Wales) and far North (Scotland). Not to mention Brittany which was in effect named for and populated by Britons fleeing the wake of Anglo Saxon advances. That shows a fear of what was happening in their homeland, akin to the refugees fleeing Nazi Germany during WWII. And one final pointer, the name Wales is Old English and means foreigner. So the Foreigners it seems made Wales their home in the violent times of the migration/end of Roman period.English n proud (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)VeryLargeCommercialTransport

Fiction As History
I agree with all concerned here. There is no direct evidence that Honorius' letter even existed. If it is to be referred to all it should state (clearly, with references) that Zozimus (himself unreliable) puts a one liner in a section dealing with the Italy, and that Gildas' comment cannot be extended beyond what it actually says.

Zomimus alludes to Honorius advising the Britons to stiffen their defences.

Gildas' letter refers to the right to manufacture arms.

Neither directly or indirectly says that ANY military forces were removed from Britain.

The folk-myth that Britain was denuded of its forces is fiction until such time as evidence appears. 08:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)VeryLargeCommercialTransport — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryLargeCommercialTransport (talk • contribs)


 * Well, the idea that Constantine III took most of the remaining mobile forces out of the island is a widespread interpretation in modern reliable sources. Zosimus may be unreliable in the ordinary sense, but he's what we've got and he does (probably) report Honorius telling the British civitates to look to their own defence. What form of words would you suggest? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This edit was a major change. I've rewritten the 407 to 410 section to reflect the dispute but that needs to be integrated with the 'Factual disputes' section. I've had a go at rewriting the lead for NPOV but I'm sure it can be improved. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm on an extended break, but I check in from time to time. I think my contributions are responsible for the contentions in question, but please continue to improve the article ... different strokes for different folks, and certainly good eyes and rational discussion will result in a better article. A few immediate comments:
 * The removal of troops/bands by Maximus is not unrelated to suppositions on the origins of Britanny, an issue not settled as yet; archaeology shows Britons on the continent (but not usually in Britanny, and the dates are not unquestioned).
 * Gildas is a terrible historical source, and Zosimus is little better regarding Britain. Placing their comments in a less authoritative tenor is to the good, I think. There's nothing to connect them, though, and as they offer consistent versions, that might give their independent versions more weight (regarding both the departure of troops from Britain, and regarding the "rescript" ... I would certainly give them greater weight than some historians who promulgate that their theories deserve viability simply because there is a lack of proof that their theories are false). And by common sense alone, Maximus must have taken at least some militarily capable British troops whenever possible, since challenging an emperor for power would require all the forces that he could muster.
 * The inclusion of the bagaudae in the historical text rather than the "disputes" section seems to muddy the waters, unless the treatment in the "disputes" section was lacking ... it is no more than a supposition that lacks reliable support, as was noted and cited. Similarly, but to a lesser degree, the attribution of the rescript to Bruttium rather than to Britain (based on nothing more than the assumption that Zosimus didn't know how to spell "Bruttium" and stuck a mention of southern Italy into a passage largely concerned with northern Italy).
 * The recently removed text in the lead that noted a lack of Romanization in the north and west was indeed accurate, and can be reliably-and-copiously cited (though I didn't do that in the lead), but the removal doesn't detract, and as usual when I've contributed something, the text can be improved by alteration and shortening.

Please continue to "massage" the article. If you question anything I've written here (in the course of doing research I've left out more than I included), please bring it up on the talk page, and I'll respond semi-promptly (but don't let it slow down the improvements). Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing linkage
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)

Documents instead of Guesswork
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)