User:JoshuaHac/Wales in the Roman era/Kleio Artemia Peer Review

Peer Review
Peer Review: My comments will be in Italics.

Invasion and conquest
Main article: Roman conquest of Britain

'Tacitus records that an (unnamed) tribe had attacked a Roman ally in Britain (Tacitus Annals'' 12.31). According to Tacitus, the tribe that was responsible for this incursion was the  ' Decangi ' ', scholars associate this tribe with the Welsh Deceangli. These two sentences are a bit confusing, first the tribe is unnamed and then Tacitus names them, perhaps it just needs clarification because I do like that you start the section with the Welsh aggression which prompted the Roman response.''

The Romans responded swiftly, imposing restrictions upon all of the suspected tribes, then they began to move against the Deceangli. The Roman conquest of this tribe is predicted to have been between the years AD 48 or 49. You talk about how the Roman conquest of the Deceangli is predicted to have been between the years AD 48 or 49, it might be beneficial to add a reason why they predict this, how do scholars come up with this number?

Shortly following this, the Romans campaigned against the Silures tribe of south-eastern Wales, which due to the way Tacitus discusses them, must have had previous encounters with the Roman army. ''When you talk about Tacitus it might add to the article if you expanded on what exactly Tacitus said about the Silures that demonstrates their previous encounters. You could even provide a short quote from Tacitus.''

Because of this tribes ferocity and insubordination, the Romans built a legionary fortress to suppress them.

Overall, this is a nice addition to the Invasion and Conquest section, it provides a needed background as to why they invaded and is a better beginning to this section.

In AD 47 or 48 the new governor, Publius Ostorius Scapula, moved against the Deceangli along the northeastern coast of Wales, devastating their lands. He campaigned successfully but indecisively against the Silures and then the Ordovices, the most notable feature of which is the leadership of both tribes against him by Caratacus. Scapula died in 52, the same year that the resurgent Silures inflicted a defeat on one of the Roman legions. Scapula was succeeded by a number of governors who made steady but inconclusive gains against the two tribes. Gaius Suetonius Paulinus was in the process of conquering Anglesey in AD 60 when the revolt led by Boudica in the east forced a delay in the final conquest of Wales.

There followed a decade of relative peace while Roman imperial attention was focused elsewhere. When expansion into Wales resumed in 73, Roman progress was steady and successful under Sextus Julius Frontinus, who decisively defeated the Silures, followed by the success of Gnaeus Julius Agricola in defeating the Ordovices, and in completing the conquest of Anglesey in AD 77–78.

There is no indication of any Roman campaigns against the Demetae, and their territory was not planted with a series of forts, nor overlaid with roads, suggesting that they quickly made their peace with Rome. The main fort in their territory was at Moridunum (modern Carmarthen), built around AD 75, and it eventually became the centre of a Roman civitas. The Demetae were the only pre-Roman Welsh tribe to emerge from Roman rule with their tribal name intact.[citation needed]

I plan to rewrite this entire section, as it lacks citations and contains some false, or misleading, information. Good call rewriting the section, you might not have to redo everything but I agree there is a definite lack of citations.

Creation of new section:

Wales Before the Roman Conquest.
''I like this addition to the article. You could even put it in before the Invasion and conquest section and after the Britain in AD 47 section, the chronological order might be nice.''

'''Northern Wales and southern Wales have some notable cultural differences before the Roman invasion, and should not be considered one entity. Southern Wales was advancing along with the rest of Britain throughout the Iron Age, whereas the Northern parts of Wales were conservative and slower to advance.' I like that you differentiate between the North and the South, it makes it clear that Wales as we know it today was non existent so we must consider Wales in multiple ways.''

Along with their technological advancement, from the fifth to the first century BCE, southern Wales became more heavily and densely populated. This is an interesting thing to note and it might be beneficial if you expanded more specifically on how they were different, are there any examples of technological advancement in the South that the North didn't have?

With that being said, southern Wales had more in common with the north than it did with the rest of Britain, and they saw little outside influence up until the Roman conquest. I like that you still differentiate Wales from the rest of Britain, despite the North and South being different.

Hill forts are one of the most common sites found throughout Iron-Age Wales, and this is what archaeologists mostly rely upon. This sentence feels unfinished, what do the archaeologists rely on the Hill forts for?

Nevertheless, due to the relative lack of archaeological activity, survey groupings of these forts throughout Wales can be uneven or misleading. You could expand on this further, how are they misleading, what other thing could they point to?

'''Modern scholars theorize that Wales before the Roman conquest was similar to the rest of Iron Age Britain, however, this is still debated due to the sparsity of evidence. For the most part, the regions archaeological legacy consists of burials and hill forts, Wales (along with more distant parts of Britain) gradually stopped making pottery throughout the Iron Age (which usually helps archaeologists explore the distant past). However, this is not to say that there was no trade within the region; evidenced by archaeological assemblages (such as the Wilburton complex) suggest that there was trade throughout all of Britain, connecting with Ireland and Northern France.'''

This section is nice, I like the discussion about the archaeology, you could add more to fill it out but overall it provides a concise explanation of the archaeology.

''I couldn't copy your sources, but I looked on your draft page to see what you had. It might be nice to find a couple more sources that support both of your sections, I know you aren't done the first one, so you might have more in the works. If you can it could support your article to bring in more primary sources for the Invasion and Conquest section.''

''You do a good job keeping bias out of your additions and for the most part your additions are clear and concise. As a whole I think your additions will only benefit the article, there are a couple things that could make your contributions stronger but I think you have a good handle on what needs work. Good Job!'' Kleio Artemia (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)