What do you think?
Rate this book
Britannia - The Failed State: Tribal Conflict and the End of Roman Britain
Attempts to understand how Roman Britain ends and Anglo-Saxon England begins have been undermined by the division of studies into pre-Roman, Roman and early medieval periods. This groundbreaking new study traces the history of British tribes and British tribal rivalries from the pre-Roman period, through the Roman period and into the post-Roman period. It shows how tribal conflict was central to the arrival of Roman power in Britain and how tribal identities persisted through the Roman period and were a factor in three great convulsions that struck Britain during the Roman centuries. It explores how tribal conflicts may have played a major role in the end of Roman Britain, creating a 'failed state' scenario akin in some ways to those seen recently in Bosnia and Iraq, and brought about the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. Finally, it considers how British tribal territories and British tribal conflicts can be understood as the direct predecessors of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and Anglo-Saxon conflicts that form the basis of early English History.
- GenresNonfictionHistory
256 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2008
9 people are currently reading
94 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 2, 2022
The collapse of the western Roman empire was disruptive everywhere. But it was peculiarly intense in Britain. Unlike the continent, there is no trace of the Latin language left. The buildings all come down. None of the political institutions survive. Even Christianity doesn't survive. Why?
The author had spent time in various conflict zones and tries to read that experience into British history. I think he mostly succeeds.
His thesis is that Britain was never very Romanized; the pre Roman tribal identities very much continued throughout. The book expands that thesis, comparing it to the documentary and literary evidence. At every turn, the author asks, "how would this have looked if Roman Britain were really Yugoslavia?" In his telling, the pullout of the legions in 410 was a bit like the American pullout from Afghanistan. There was no real “British” regime to continue and the whole thing disintegrates, leaving an open field for Saxon settlement.
I learned a great deal, both about Britain and about Rome.
Casual readers of Caesar might think that the Britons were an unarticulated mass of tribal warriors. In fact, they seem to have been organized into several distinct tribes or proto-states, many with close ties to other Celtic groups on the continent. And it seems likely that several of them were happy to have the Romans come beat up their enemies. Perhaps we should have expected "divide and rule" here, but that's what that probably is.
More interestingly, these tribal divisions continue. Roman Britannia was divided into "civitates" that corresponded to pre-existing divisions and this can be demonstrated archeologically. We have inscriptions in which people continue to identify their tribe into the late Roman period. When we see bouts of internal violence, they seem to correspond to these tribal boundaries.
We see quite a lot of internal violence at some points. English cities acquired walls in the second century and it wasn't to keep out the Saxons at that point. There's a long gap between 410 when the legions leave and the 6th century when the Saxons are in charge and long before we see Saxon settlement we see people lighting cook fires in the middle of villa mosaic floors and leaving their debris in the corner. The author, again lean
When the Saxons finally arrive, they aren't a wave of conquering marauders. They are initially brought in as mercenaries, because the post-Roman island had _already_ come apart into separate hostile political units. The initial Saxon settlements don't start on the east coast and move inland they start fairly deep in the interior, at points of territorial conflict.
When we finally have historical record in the sixth and seventh centuries, we see Saxon states (the heptarchy) with borders that line up surprisingly well with the divisions between Celtic groups that we can trace in the archeological records. The author infers that the Saxons merged into preexisting local elites (either by coup or marriage or gradual settlement and mingling.)
It's of course bad to trust entirely to one book, but I find myself reasonably convinced. This thesis explains a lot, and our prior should have been that an empire was made of parts. I may revise this view if I find information to the contrary.
The author had spent time in various conflict zones and tries to read that experience into British history. I think he mostly succeeds.
His thesis is that Britain was never very Romanized; the pre Roman tribal identities very much continued throughout. The book expands that thesis, comparing it to the documentary and literary evidence. At every turn, the author asks, "how would this have looked if Roman Britain were really Yugoslavia?" In his telling, the pullout of the legions in 410 was a bit like the American pullout from Afghanistan. There was no real “British” regime to continue and the whole thing disintegrates, leaving an open field for Saxon settlement.
I learned a great deal, both about Britain and about Rome.
Casual readers of Caesar might think that the Britons were an unarticulated mass of tribal warriors. In fact, they seem to have been organized into several distinct tribes or proto-states, many with close ties to other Celtic groups on the continent. And it seems likely that several of them were happy to have the Romans come beat up their enemies. Perhaps we should have expected "divide and rule" here, but that's what that probably is.
More interestingly, these tribal divisions continue. Roman Britannia was divided into "civitates" that corresponded to pre-existing divisions and this can be demonstrated archeologically. We have inscriptions in which people continue to identify their tribe into the late Roman period. When we see bouts of internal violence, they seem to correspond to these tribal boundaries.
We see quite a lot of internal violence at some points. English cities acquired walls in the second century and it wasn't to keep out the Saxons at that point. There's a long gap between 410 when the legions leave and the 6th century when the Saxons are in charge and long before we see Saxon settlement we see people lighting cook fires in the middle of villa mosaic floors and leaving their debris in the corner. The author, again lean
When the Saxons finally arrive, they aren't a wave of conquering marauders. They are initially brought in as mercenaries, because the post-Roman island had _already_ come apart into separate hostile political units. The initial Saxon settlements don't start on the east coast and move inland they start fairly deep in the interior, at points of territorial conflict.
When we finally have historical record in the sixth and seventh centuries, we see Saxon states (the heptarchy) with borders that line up surprisingly well with the divisions between Celtic groups that we can trace in the archeological records. The author infers that the Saxons merged into preexisting local elites (either by coup or marriage or gradual settlement and mingling.)
It's of course bad to trust entirely to one book, but I find myself reasonably convinced. This thesis explains a lot, and our prior should have been that an empire was made of parts. I may revise this view if I find information to the contrary.
Displaying 1 of 1 review