How are the Ancient Romans viewed in Great Britain today?

I think most all of us who read and contribute to this site are Romanophiles. Despite its many faults, we agree that Ancient Rome contributed in a positive way to modern society.

Today, however, many academicians have re-assessed this positive view of Ancient Rome, as well as of others once admired in the Western tradition.

Here in the United States, for example, Christopher Columbus is no longer uniformly seen as a brave explorer who

There's been a growing tendency to modernise the Romans, to show how advanced they were, and to draw parallels with our time. Some of this is ok, sort of, because parallels do exist but sometimes this gets a little ambitious. For instance, the Romans are credited with concrete. Ok, they did invent it, but the modern use of such material has nothing to do with the Romans at all. Modern concrete is a modern re-invention.

The Roman legions also get the same treatment. people look for similarities and make vague claims of 'equivalence' simply based on numbers without actually looking at the details of organisation and methods. In some respects, this is a misinterpretation of certain sources, but it's also a drawing conclusions from coincidence, rather like claiming the ancient egyptians knew how far away the sun was because the distance happens to be a convenient multiple of the side of a pyramid.

I remember seeing a computer reconstruction of the colosseum on tv. Whilst the program was actually quite good and had a lot of interesting things to say about how the Romans creatd a public theatre with the same sort of access as modern stadiums, it blew it completely concerning naval battles staged there. In reality, you could put two galleys side by side in the arena and they couldn't go anywhere because they had no room. In the reconstruction, tiny little galleys the size of rowboats were animated, making the Colosseum six times as large as real life just to illustrate a point.

On the plus side, there has been some very clever insight into Roman times but oddly, it doesn't really impact on the public onciousness. I suspect thats because it doesn't meet the sensationalist imagery we've gotten use to.

I'm not aware of regional differences, aside from local pride in Roman remains, but in recent years the Romans have indeed become associated with Arthurian myth. The museum at Cirencester (Corinium) had on display the armour worn by Clive Owen in the King Arthur film that illustrated him as a Roman administrator protecting Britain against Saxon incursion.

Is Latin still taught in UK secondary schools as a matter of course?

...cant speak for Britain, but in Austria if you go to a Gymnasium (would say about 30% of all pupils here) then you have to...

...and yes it is spelled today in Austria exactly as the greek word, Gymnasium, if you dont believe me here the official Gymnasium page in my hometown

As far as I am aware the Romans are portrayed very favourably in the UK, love them or hate them you can't deny that the Romans were by far the most advanced race of their age. When the Romans invaded they brought death and bloodshed to the island but once the tribes had been pacified and subdued( this didn't happen over night by the way, it took many many years of fighting and hard work) Britain, well at least south of the wall, was left a much more civilized, cultured and modern country. The "What did the Romans" sketch from Monty Python funny as it is, hits the nail on the head.

What the Romans did for Britain can not be underestimated and I think the people of England fully understand and appreciate it. As for the barbarians on the other side of the wall I can't really comment, they've got a chip on their shoulder about most things so they'll probably have some complaint about the Romans!!

...and yes it is spelled today in Austria exactly as the greek word, Gymnasium, if you dont believe me here the official Gymnasium page in my hometown

We have the same word in Swedish, presumably borrowed somewhere along the way though.

What the Romans did for Britain can not be underestimated and I think the people of England fully understand and appreciate it.

But how much of it was lost after the retreat and fall of the empire?

But how much of it was lost after the retreat and fall of the empire?

That's the sad thing about the whole decline of the Roman Empire not just in Britain but through out Europe. So much was lost and left to fall into dis-repair or plundered that what we are left with is just a small fraction of the greatness of the Romans. But yet we still remember and study them to this day.

It just goes to show how much of an impact they had on us, that once the Romans had had their day the whole of Europe quickly and unceremoniously slipped into the dark ages.

But how much of it was lost after the retreat and fall of the empire?

 

That's the sad thing about the whole decline of the Roman Empire not just in Britain but through out Europe. So much was lost and left to fall into dis-repair or plundered that what we are left with is just a small fraction of the greatness of the Romans. But yet we still remember and study them to this day.

It just goes to show how much of an impact they had on us, that once the Romans had had their day the whole of Europe quickly and unceremoniously slipped into the dark ages.

Do you know why the Brits lost Latin as their language when it was preserved in so many other parts of the empire?

About Britain I could speak only as tourist looking out for Roman things in Britain. In London the museums of course have Roman sections esp. the British Museum which also has a department dealing with British-Romano-History and other sections dealing with Roman stuff from all over the world. Also at the London Museum they trace the history of Londinium.

In Chester they seem to be more proud of their Roman ancestry as there is a group which leads Roman walks in legionary uniforms taking the visitors to the Roman sites of that town. To me it appeared that the Romans are more present in Chester than in London.

But how much of it was lost after the retreat and fall of the empire?

 

That's the sad thing about the whole decline of the Roman Empire not just in Britain but through out Europe. So much was lost and left to fall into dis-repair or plundered that what we are left with is just a small fraction of the greatness of the Romans. But yet we still remember and study them to this day.

It just goes to show how much of an impact they had on us, that once the Romans had had their day the whole of Europe quickly and unceremoniously slipped into the dark ages.

 

Do you know why the Brits lost Latin as their language when it was preserved in so many other parts of the empire?

I'm not intirely sure but I would hazard a guess it was probably something to do with when the Anglo Saxons arrived in the 5th Century??

Do you know why the Brits lost Latin as their language when it was preserved in so many other parts of the empire?

I'm not intirely sure but I would hazard a guess it was probably something to do with when the Anglo Saxons arrived in the 5th Century??

That didn't answer the question; there were plenty of Germanic invaders all over the whole former Western Empire, and in most of it the romance languages are still alive.

Do you know why the Brits lost Latin as their language when it was preserved in so many other parts of the empire?

I'm not intirely sure but I would hazard a guess it was probably something to do with when the Anglo Saxons arrived in the 5th Century??

That didn't answer the question; there were plenty of Germanic invaders all over the whole former Western Empire, and in most of it the romance languages are still alive.

Just the thin that makes me so curious.

There seems to be some debate, but I hold with those who say that Romanization was never extremely strong in Britain to begin with outside of the southeast coast. After all, it took 3 legions to keep the place pacified, and few if any Britons made it to the Senatorial order. So perhaps what we're dealing with is a thin coating of Romanization that quickly wore off with the arrival of the Saxons, while Romanization on the Continent was much more embedded.

There seems to be some debate, but I hold with those who say that Romanization was never extremely strong in Britain to begin with outside of the southeast coast. After all, it took 3 legions to keep the place pacified, and few if any Britons made it to the Senatorial order. So perhaps what we're dealing with is a thin coating of Romanization that quickly wore off with the arrival of the Saxons, while Romanization on the Continent was much more embedded.

A reasonable explanation, but it leave another question in it's path, why was the area never very romanized? Fair enough it was under Roman influence for a shorter period of time (I've never really read anything on the Romanization of Britain) than some other areas but it should still be enough?

Is Latin still taught in UK secondary schools as a matter of course?

It is in good grammar schools and in very posh schools.