How are the Ancient Romans viewed in Great Britain today?

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?

A shorter period of time?

The Romans were present in Britain for 367 years, they officially (not counting Caesar's brief flirtation in 55/54BC) arrived in 43AD under the invasion of Claudius and finally left the island for good in 407 AD when Constantine III was proclaimed emperor by the Roman troops in Britain and crossed the Channel with all of the remaining units of the British garrison, Roman Britain effectively ended. The inhabitants were forced to be responsible for their own defence and government

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?

 

A shorter period of time?

 

The Romans were present in Britain for 367 years, they officially (not counting Caesar's brief flirtation in 55/54BC) arrived in 43AD under the invasion of Claudius and finally left the island for good in 407 AD when Constantine III was proclaimed emperor by the Roman troops in Britain and crossed the Channel with all of the remaining units of the British garrison, Roman Britain effectively ended. The inhabitants were forced to be responsible for their own defence and government

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?

 

A shorter period of time?

 

The Romans were present in Britain for 367 years, they officially (not counting Caesar's brief flirtation in 55/54BC) arrived in 43AD under the invasion of Claudius and finally left the island for good in 407 AD when Constantine III was proclaimed emperor by the Roman troops in Britain and crossed the Channel with all of the remaining units of the British garrison, Roman Britain effectively ended. The inhabitants were forced to be responsible for their own defence and government

Kosmo will probably have to confirm this, but I think Dacia is a special case in that it underwent an intensive Roman colonisation process. The Dacian elite became quickly romanised and passed on its language (vulgar Latin) and customs to the peasantry.

Also, it is believed that the Dacians and Getae were more receptive to foreign cultures. I get the impression that there was a lot more resistance to Roman occupation from native tribes in Roman Britain. Did Latin actually become the lingua franca in Britain (did the population outside Roman towns actually speak Latin in their daily lives)?

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?

Well, the general trend seems to be that the core of the Empire was the Mediterranean coast, while the further we get away from the Mediterranean coast the more peripheral the lands become to Rome in a cultural and economic sense. Everything I have reads confirms this: the regional patterns of recruitment into the Senate not being the least.

As to why, the usual explanations given are that the coastal regions developed very quickly due to trade. The Iron Age tribes in Gaul along the Mediterranean coast had been trading with Greeks and Phoenecians and Etruscans long before the Romans, and they were the first to become Romanized. The Britons remained for the most part tribal, localized and agrarian and thus weren't as "prepared" for Romanization as other tribes had been. The main exception of course is the southeast coast where the tribes had been trading with the mainland, and Romanization most easily took hold.

... the rest of Gaul, and Britain, remained unchanged. Their basic structure was tribal, not urban. But without thoroughgoing urbanization, there was no prospect of an integrated Graeco-Roman-Celtic society. .... the cultural elite of the empire drew a firm line between what they saw as the Mediterranean core of the empire and its barbaric periphery. In particular, the conquest of the North did not in their view produce a broader cultural unity.

Garnsey, Peter & Saller, Richard. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. University of California Press. Berkely, California. 1987.

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

No, it isn't. Very schools have teachers who know what latin is, much less with the ability to teach it. I started school in 1965 and had not one lesson in latin ever. In, fact, only one person I've met had latin lessons at school.

No, it isn't. Very schools have teachers who know what latin is, much less with the ability to teach it. I started school in 1965 and had not one lesson in latin ever. In, fact, only one person I've met had latin lessons at school.

Seems to be the same way here. Latin seems to be taught only in the better and/or richer schools. I had two years of Spanish and was lucky to get that.

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?

 

A shorter period of time?

 

The Romans were present in Britain for 367 years, they officially (not counting Caesar's brief flirtation in 55/54BC) arrived in 43AD under the invasion of Claudius and finally left the island for good in 407 AD when Constantine III was proclaimed emperor by the Roman troops in Britain and crossed the Channel with all of the remaining units of the British garrison, Roman Britain effectively ended. The inhabitants were forced to be responsible for their own defence and government

Seems to be the same way here. Latin seems to be taught only in the better and/or richer schools. I had two years of Spanish and was lucky to get that.

I had a year of German, plus five years of French at school, and another year of French at college prior to a foreign visit (France, by strange coincidence).

Mon francais est still rubbish (but I have an excuse, it was twenty five years ago!)

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.

One of the suggestion for the base of the Arthurian legend is Lucius Artorius Castus who serve as dux in Roman Britain in the second century.

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

 

No, it isn't. Very schools have teachers who know what latin is, much less with the ability to teach it. I started school in 1965 and had not one lesson in latin ever. In, fact, only one person I've met had latin lessons at school.

Would that be me, Calders? If not - now you know two of us! It was compulsory at my all girls grammar school for the first three years, but lots of us took it O-level at least because the Latin master was such a character.

But you are right - it is taught very little these days - even the great independent schools are only maintaining it as an option for 'geeky' lads and lassies. I spoke with a secondary school teacher only a couple of years ago who said that the general consensus among teachers today was that the subject - along with Greek - was far too hard for young kids, and it should be left to the sixth form! Ye Gods - I was 11 years old when I first learned how to chant Amo, Amas, Amat by rote! What's more, I can still conjugate any Latin verb today. You don't forget these things when they were 'hammered' into your susceptible brain. (I can still decline my nouns too).

As to the question further up the thread about Latin being a lingua franca? It was only ever used as the language of the establishment bodies, such as the law and the church. I am a genealogist and it is not uncommon to find older parish registers (anything up to the late 18th century in some outlying parishes of Cheshire, for example) written in Latin, and wills made during the 16th and early 17th centuries can also come from the record office in very, very bad scribe's Latin. (Trust me, they're a nightmare to transcribe and translate!). I doubt the farmers around Kent chatted on in Latin over their ploughs - and as Julius said, the most civilised of the Britons lived 'in a place called Kent'. I think they still believe him!

Ursus made a telling comment about we Brits being a nation (during the Roman occupation) of separate, warring tribes. Ursus, I have news for you. Nothing has changed at all! We are still like that - even though we don't care to admit it publically. Even among the most enlightened of us, you will still find areas of divide; we have turned our differences into humourous, good-natured teasing, but believe me, it is still there. Note GPM's comment above regarding the Scots. He covered it with humour, but I'll bet he meant it.

It is perhaps the very make-up and nature of the indigenous peoples of these isles that proved more resistant to lasting Romanisation than some other areas of the world. If we can't really unite ourselves, how could the Romans expect to do the job?

I don't have to tell anyone on here that I'm as big a Romanophile as the rest of us, and although Roman Britain is not my area of expertise (in fact, to be honest, it holds far less interest for me than Rome and the Med itself), I think the majority of us here in Britain (always allowing for the New Age tree-huggers) are favourable to the impact the Romans had - but I'm not sure just how long that impact actually lasted.

Mon francais est still rubbish (but I have an excuse, it was twenty five years ago!)

Mon Francais est pas mal ... pour un Anglais!

Many Scots are under the impression that they were too 'hard' for the Romans, hence Hadrian's Wall. When it is pointed out to them that Scotland wasn't economically viable for the romans to colonise but they had to close the frontier somewhere, they dont like it one bit!

It is perhaps the very make-up and nature of the indigenous peoples of these isles that proved more resistant to lasting Romanisation than some other areas of the world. If we can't really unite ourselves, how could the Romans expect to do the job?

This is exactly where people go wrong. The Romans didn't try to assimilate populations and convert them to Romans. What they wanted was populations who obeyed their laws and paid their taxes. If however, their population was amenable to doing things the Roman way, then so much the better,, and they encouraged that. It was never compulsory.

I don't have to tell anyone on here that I'm as big a Romanophile as the rest of us, and although Roman Britain is not my area of expertise (in fact, to be honest, it holds far less interest for me than Rome and the Med itself), I think the majority of us here in Britain (always allowing for the New Age tree-huggers) are favourable to the impact the Romans had - but I'm not sure just how long that impact actually lasted.

I do think that there's a folk memory lurking behind that. The uncertainty and strife following the Roman withdrawal left a feeling that a golden age had been lost, something that survives to the present day. Certainly the Roman occupation had benefits for the Brits (provided they complied of course) but this tends to get linked to cultural achievement when in fact what people actually fondly remembered was the 'order' of daily life at that time. You could argue then that the impact of the Roman occupation is, diluted and hazy in the mind, but still there.

Would that be me, Calders? If not - now you know two of us! It was compulsory at my all girls grammar school for the first three years, but lots of us took it O-level at least because the Latin master was such a character.

That's what I was trying to say earlier but alas!My post was ignored

I worked as a teaching assistant of Italian and Latin in a grammar school in Kent for some time. From what I've gathered only very few "upper class" schools have Latin (and Italian) in their curricula, i.e. the best grammar schools and the

It is perhaps the very make-up and nature of the indigenous peoples of these isles that proved more resistant to lasting Romanisation than some other areas of the world. If we can't really unite ourselves, how could the Romans expect to do the job?

This is exactly where people go wrong. The Romans didn't try to assimilate populations and convert them to Romans. What they wanted was populations who obeyed their laws and paid their taxes. If however, their population was amenable to doing things the Roman way, then so much the better,, and they encouraged that. It was never compulsory.

That's a damned good point, Calders - I wasn't looking at it that way. You know, this is a fascinating topic really. I'm sure we've visited the motives behind Roman expansion throughout the ages of ancient Rome, but it's a good topic to debate in real depth.