Talk:Roman conquest of Britain

Random thank you fact
Hello. I'm glad to see the subject of Roman archaeology being intensively worked on. Your user page doesn't say how long you've been involved, but I take it not long. (Same here.) Keep up the good work. Deb

I have been around Wikipedia since February. We have a little overlap between this page and your Caratacus but I do not think it matters. I am particularly interested in the Hadrian's wall area, and Lullingstone. We will probably be editing one another's pages. -- Vignaux

overlapping page
This page overlaps considerably with Roman Britain. Perhaps they should be combined? (I posted a corresponding comment on Talk:Roman Britain. Fpahl 16:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good but....
The page is a good reflection of Roman history, but:

- It missed the point about Agricola. In Tacitus's work, Agricola beat the last unconquered tribes of Britain, the Caledonians, at the battle of Mons Graupius. He was then recalled to Rome, and Britain, once conquered was allowed to slip from the clutches of Rome. So, according to history, the entirety of Albion was conquered. This is according to our only historical account which was written by Tacitus who was Agricola's son in law. Bias is certain.

- the article makes it out that all Britons were hostile to Rome's offensive. Many tribes openly welcomed the Romans, partially because of the benefits that would come by being under the control of Rome including Roman Citizenship for nobles of a client kingdom.

- the information about the Roman "boundary", whether it be Hadrian's Wall, or the Antonine Wall is very out of date. The Romans had a fundamental influence, often direct, on Scotland, as far north as Aberdeen, for many hundreds of years. The "Scots" may get some pride out of keeping the Romans out, but that probably wasn't the case. Read "history of Scotland" to get a feel of what happened.


 * Good points. Mons Graupius, Inchtuthil etc certainly ought to be in there. I've put in a little stuff about Roman influence in Scotland,Ireland and LPRIA Britain generally but I agree more should be made of it. adamsan 08:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but when you say "History of Scotland" what do you mean? Is this a book citation, or do you mean the page History of Scotland, which doesn't particularly add to or contradict anything said here on this subject?


 * Also, I would contrast the "pride" you assume at "keeping the Romans out" with the "pride" usually exhibited by those on the other side of the wall, who use Roman occupation as evidence they were more "civilised" and worth conquering, and those north of the wall are to be dismissed as barbarians too poor to excite Roman cupidity. This is the basic tacit agenda of most English accounts of this period in history - a pretext for and legitimisation of later English imperialism.


 * The facts stated about the walls are not out of date. You are in fact misinterpreting the significance of a Roman "limes" in a way completely inconsistent with limites anywhere else in the empire to make a modern, ahistorical point. The influence north of the wall is alluded to by the discussion of the density of marching camps.


 * In terms of Roman influence, a people do not have to be conquered to be influenced. For example, the Russian title Tsar is directly derived from Caesar. Closer to home, the Dupplin Cross, for example, depicts an individual, presumably a king, riding a horse in a Roman fashion, possibly as an affectation related to status, and nothing to do with being conquered.


 * No point in Tactitus' work is missed. His intended propaganda message is well understood but of limited value from a historical point of view. The article explicitly makes the point later about the first recorded words that we can be confident were actually spoken being attributed to the wife of Argentocoxus. This point is made precisely because the speech Tacitus puts in the mouth of Calgacus in the Agricola, while very stirring, and potentially a source of Scottish "pride," is most likely apocryphal, and an example of criticism of contemporary imperial authorities being attributed to a noble savage to escape censure for the writer.

We are legionary
Churchill in History of the English Speaking Peoples, v1, says by 78AD, Brit legionaries were the equal of, or second only to, Illyrians in quality. Can anybody confirm & include? Trekphiler 00:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thames
Hi Neddy, I'm stalking you again. Made an alteration to your edit about the Britons retiring to the Thames. Dio specifically mentions the name of the river - 60:20.5, Ταμέσαν in the Greek (don't know any Greek, so I don't know what case it's in). --Nicknack009 22:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Noviomagum
Seems strange to identify Noviomagum with Colchester in a discussion of south to north vs east to west invasion of Britain by Claudius. Would it not be more logical to identify Noviomagum with the present town of Nijmegen in The Netherlands (as is commonly acknowledged to be the root of its name), which was a Roman stronghold? This might also end the discussion as to Rhine harbours versus French ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.21.11 (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be strange, but fortunately the article doesn't do that. It is known that Chichester (not Colchester) was called Noviomagus (not Noviomagum). The fact that Nijmegen was called Noviomagum is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Foment", not "ferment"
Foment as a noun:


 * Sorry to have started this one, it's totally trivial, but I've never heard of "foment" being used as a noun before, and your reference doesn't do so, nor does any other that I've found. The noun is "fomentation".

Thanks btw for starting the page on my illustrious relative, Geoffrey Keating. I wouldn't have found the online translation otherwise.Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the noun "foment" is defined as "fomentation". Which seems a bit circular, but there you go. It's a perfectly good word, and I like it.


 * Geoffrey Keating's amazing. Not what you would call accurate history, but he preserves some extraordinary traditions that might otherwise have been lost - like Partholón's neolithic farmers supplanting Cichol's hunter-gatherers. In the 17th century, the Irish remembered there were once hunter-gatherers! --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Over two millennia of oral tradition is fairly impressive!


 * Actually I think the dictionary definition is pointing out that the verb "foment" has a derivative noun, "fomentation", which AFAIK describes a potion applied to the skin and worked up to a lather. Leaving out the grammatical argument, "ferment" seems a better metaphor to describe a country discussing revolution, if you've seen a vat of something fermenting. Rather than being worked up by an outside agent, bubbles keep rising all over the surface.
 * I absolutely can't be doing with an edit war or even a small argument on this utterly trivial point, so I'll leave it for others. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I concede that the examples given include a use of the word as a noun. I'd be inclined to think that was a wrong usage myself, but usage is usage. I have never previously seen the word as anything but a transitive verb, and I struggle to think what it means as a noun - fomenting *what*? Everything? Anything? The only straightforward meaning of "a foment" is a poultice.
 * But I agree - life's too short... -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

resulted in the creation of the U.S.
When Rome conquered England, it (England) was a land of scattered tribes, but through the Roman creating the fortress and roads, civilized Engand. This created the foundations for the British empire. if england was not conquered, caould it have been strong enough to colonize the 13 colonies. if it was some other nation colonizing us, and we might not have rebelled from that nation, or we might have rebelled, and not won (England had 10s of thousands of soldier, but French had 100s of thousands) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.199.175.65 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant to the purpose of this page, which is to improve the article, but Rome conquered most of Britain, there was no England, and after Roman rule collapsed so did the cities and fortresses. I can see no relationship between the Roman conquest of Britain and colonising North America. Doug Weller (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agricola's Successors

 * Hello. I was researching Agricola and his successors, but I could not find the the names of his replacement(s). Could somebody please add their names instead of calling them his "ineffectual successors"?  Rsercher (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't add what isn't known, sorry. Tacitus is very detailed on the succession of governors of Britain up to Agricola, but we have nothing relevant from him after that. No other ancient historian takes quite such an interest in affairs in Britain, so what we have after that is patchy. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of post-Roman geographical descriptions
The direct use of post-Roman geographical descriptions such as Scotland, England and several counties is, I would suggest, misleading. I propose that where an equivalent geographic term that has contemporaneous validity such as "northern Britain", "Caledonia" or "southern Britain" is available it should used in preference to a term that only came into use in later centuries. Where no such term is available or it would be imprecise then modern geographical terms might be used indirectly. For example I am pretty sure that there was no such thing as Dumfriesshire or the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright during the first century AD. Therefore it would be better to make the following change from:
 * In southern-most Scotland, Dumfriesshire and the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright (home to the Selgovae) were heavily planted with forts ...

To:
 * In southern-most Caledonia, the lands of the the Selgovae (appoximating to modern Dumfriesshire and the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright) were heavily planted with forts ...

I will make a start on this but as a similar naming proposal has proved controversial (see Talk:Scotland during the Roman Empire) this might require some discussion. Greenshed (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The term Great Britain has been used, at the time there was no such thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.212.199 (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Tin deposits?
Were any of the Roman campaigns intended to secure tin metal deposits? 71.218.15.84 (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=831873309#Did_the_Romans_invade_Britain_for_tin? So many good answers here,] even if they are a firm "maybe" in aggregate. 71.218.15.84 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not speculate on what might have been in the minds of Roman planners. Unless there are Roman sources saying they were after tin we leave it out.Charles (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean secondary sources. Roman sources would be primary sources, and on matters of history we defer to peer reviewed historians writing in academic journals or scholarly treatises. One of the issues is that the Romans involved might not have been entirely forthright about their motives in this case. But I personally have no desire to add anything in particular on the topic given that the secondary sources are so inconclusive. 71.218.15.84 (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The Romans invade
𝙒𝙝𝙤 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝘽𝙤𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙘𝙖? 171.101.109.29 (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)