What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fall of Roman Britain: and Why We Speak English
“Fascinating. . . . Will have a very special appeal to readers [interested] in the evolution of the English language, Roman history, and medieval British history.” —Midwest Book Review
The end of empire in Britain was both more abrupt and more complete than in any of the other European Roman provinces. When the fog clears and Britain re-enters the historical record, it is, unlike other former European provinces of the Western Empire, dominated by a new culture that speaks a language that is neither Roman nor indigenous British Brythonic, and with a pagan religion that owes nothing to Romanitas or native British practices.
Other ex-Roman provinces of the Western Empire in Europe showed two consistent features conspicuously absent from the lowlands of the dominant language was derived from the local Vulgar Latin and the dominant religion was a Christianity that looked toward Rome. This leads naturally to the What was different about Britannia? A further anomaly in our understanding lies in the significant dating mismatch between historical and archaeological data of the Germanic migrations, and the latest genetic evidence. The answer to England’s unique early history may lie in resolving this paradox. In this book, John Lambshead summarizes the latest data gathered by historians, archaeologists, climatologists, and biologists—and synthesizes it into a fresh new explanation.
The end of empire in Britain was both more abrupt and more complete than in any of the other European Roman provinces. When the fog clears and Britain re-enters the historical record, it is, unlike other former European provinces of the Western Empire, dominated by a new culture that speaks a language that is neither Roman nor indigenous British Brythonic, and with a pagan religion that owes nothing to Romanitas or native British practices.
Other ex-Roman provinces of the Western Empire in Europe showed two consistent features conspicuously absent from the lowlands of the dominant language was derived from the local Vulgar Latin and the dominant religion was a Christianity that looked toward Rome. This leads naturally to the What was different about Britannia? A further anomaly in our understanding lies in the significant dating mismatch between historical and archaeological data of the Germanic migrations, and the latest genetic evidence. The answer to England’s unique early history may lie in resolving this paradox. In this book, John Lambshead summarizes the latest data gathered by historians, archaeologists, climatologists, and biologists—and synthesizes it into a fresh new explanation.
177 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 20, 2022
305 people are currently reading
135 people want to read
About the author
John Lambshead
39 books16 followersEducated Brunel University of Technology, West London, retired career research scientist British Museum (Natural History), London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
January 24, 2024
I cross the worlds of history and science, and have often seen how evidence from one field of research can complement the study of the other. The author intentionally put the two together in the search for answers in this book.
We know that the Roman Empire occupied England for 400 years. Why, then, he asks, do the British not speak a romantic language? There are historical narratives to which we can point, of post-Roman invasions by Saxons and Danes, etc., but why did not even a modicum of Vulgar Latin survive? He digs deeper, into stories involving class relations (was there ever a Roman Emperor - or even a Roman military general of any renown - from Great Britain? was it because the Brythonic-speaking people were seen as a lower class than the Romans and they were never accepted into the family?) and more.
What I truly love about this book is the imagery the author paints with the background of climate data (and this book is heavy on genealogical, climate and archaeological data, showing how history should be read from much more than just the written and architectural records). He pinpoints climactic disturbances and aligns them with military movements, how, say, the Picts might suddenly move southward in search of food after a drought. My mind, as an American reader, went to Snowy Owls irrupting across the United States, leaving the tundra when Lemming populations crash after their seed crops fail. While Snowy Owls movements might not lead to territorial wars (rather than on individual patches), the Picts suddenly foraging through Roman-held lands certainly would. The author's point is that sometimes it's the animal in us, the biological pushes, that make history happen.
He details the fall of Roman Britain quite thoroughly, and what a mess it was, as the Romans simply couldn't live with each other and society turned into a series of claims to the throne, usurpations, assassinations, lather, rinse, repeat. So we know why, and when, they left. But what of the language? He turns to Iceland for an example that supports his point, and in the end it's quite convincing.
We know that the Roman Empire occupied England for 400 years. Why, then, he asks, do the British not speak a romantic language? There are historical narratives to which we can point, of post-Roman invasions by Saxons and Danes, etc., but why did not even a modicum of Vulgar Latin survive? He digs deeper, into stories involving class relations (was there ever a Roman Emperor - or even a Roman military general of any renown - from Great Britain? was it because the Brythonic-speaking people were seen as a lower class than the Romans and they were never accepted into the family?) and more.
What I truly love about this book is the imagery the author paints with the background of climate data (and this book is heavy on genealogical, climate and archaeological data, showing how history should be read from much more than just the written and architectural records). He pinpoints climactic disturbances and aligns them with military movements, how, say, the Picts might suddenly move southward in search of food after a drought. My mind, as an American reader, went to Snowy Owls irrupting across the United States, leaving the tundra when Lemming populations crash after their seed crops fail. While Snowy Owls movements might not lead to territorial wars (rather than on individual patches), the Picts suddenly foraging through Roman-held lands certainly would. The author's point is that sometimes it's the animal in us, the biological pushes, that make history happen.
He details the fall of Roman Britain quite thoroughly, and what a mess it was, as the Romans simply couldn't live with each other and society turned into a series of claims to the throne, usurpations, assassinations, lather, rinse, repeat. So we know why, and when, they left. But what of the language? He turns to Iceland for an example that supports his point, and in the end it's quite convincing.
May 21, 2024
This is a survey of current historic and scientific knowledge of the history of lowland Britain between 0AD and 800AD. It is attempting to explain the key transition from Roman Britain in 400AD to Anglo Saxon England in 800AD.
It is really strong on the state of Roman Britain and it explains that Roman Britain was never really a proper Roman province but always functioned as a bit of a wild west. This became more pronounced in the 4th century as constant rebellions undermined the Roman state. The upheavals of the 1st decade of the 5th century meant that when the armies left in 410, the Roman state in Britain collapsed fairly quickly.
Lambshead is much weaker on what happened after 410AD. He postulates that Anglo Saxon immigrants came in fairly quickly afterwards and for a long time the AS populations lived side by side with the romano- British populations with the 2 not mixing much. There are 2 big shifts here. Around 580-620AD the Anglo Saxon states got larger so that by 620AD we have the familiar heptarchy with historically known kings and then sometime after 700AD you have the mixing of the 2 populations and an expansion of Anglo Saxon placenames. He is weak on this whole period.
Fwiw I think 2 things happen. Between 535 and 560 Britain undergoes a demographic collapse (famine then plague). I think this kills off whatever is left of post roman Britain (virtually all trade with Europe stops after 550). This allows the nascent AS kingdoms to expand their territory as there is nothing left to resist. Existing British settlements continue but under a new king. Admixture is limited as there is no need with a newly reduced population, as there is loads of land to go around. Numbers stay low as the plague revisits frequently until 680 when it finally leaves. After 680 the population finally starts rising meaning AS elites need more land, hence the expansion of AS culture into previously British areas. That process is slow and takes perhaps 150 years.
It is really strong on the state of Roman Britain and it explains that Roman Britain was never really a proper Roman province but always functioned as a bit of a wild west. This became more pronounced in the 4th century as constant rebellions undermined the Roman state. The upheavals of the 1st decade of the 5th century meant that when the armies left in 410, the Roman state in Britain collapsed fairly quickly.
Lambshead is much weaker on what happened after 410AD. He postulates that Anglo Saxon immigrants came in fairly quickly afterwards and for a long time the AS populations lived side by side with the romano- British populations with the 2 not mixing much. There are 2 big shifts here. Around 580-620AD the Anglo Saxon states got larger so that by 620AD we have the familiar heptarchy with historically known kings and then sometime after 700AD you have the mixing of the 2 populations and an expansion of Anglo Saxon placenames. He is weak on this whole period.
Fwiw I think 2 things happen. Between 535 and 560 Britain undergoes a demographic collapse (famine then plague). I think this kills off whatever is left of post roman Britain (virtually all trade with Europe stops after 550). This allows the nascent AS kingdoms to expand their territory as there is nothing left to resist. Existing British settlements continue but under a new king. Admixture is limited as there is no need with a newly reduced population, as there is loads of land to go around. Numbers stay low as the plague revisits frequently until 680 when it finally leaves. After 680 the population finally starts rising meaning AS elites need more land, hence the expansion of AS culture into previously British areas. That process is slow and takes perhaps 150 years.
November 5, 2024
The Fall of Roman Britain: and Why We Speak by John Lambshead
John Lambshead begins with a basic question: Why do we speak English?
Britain was under Roman rule for nearly four centuries – from 43 AD to 410 AD. That’s a long time. Gaul and Spain were under Roman rule for only about one hundred years longer than Britain. The area that became Romania was under Roman rule for only a century. All three areas – France, Spain, and Romania – speak a language that had its roots in Latin.
But English does not.
Worse, English does not show the influence of Latin that we might expect if there had been a vibrant Roman culture in Britain when the Saxons showed up. For that matter, Brythonic – the Celtic language spoken by British natives – had little influence on Anglo-Saxon apart from topographical features.
This insight leads Lambshead on an expedition through the history of Roman Britain. I have to admit that I thought I knew more about Roman Britain than I actually knew. I had a broad outline that Britain was conquered by Claudius, a sedate Roman culture was planted, things were fine, until suddenly in 410 AD, the Roman Empire pulled out of Britain, leaving the locals to hire Saxons for security, until the wide open borders led to some kind of cultural replacement.
A lot of that is wrong, according to Lambshead, mostly the middle part.
The conquest part went well. Once the Romans developed enough a naval infrastructure which allowed them to get enough troops across the Channel, they won all heads-to-head battles with the Britons. This allowed them to set up their command places and impose control over southern Britain.
Lambshead points out that the logic of conquest for Rome was not the logic we apply. The Romans were not looking for economic returns. Instead, Emperors, such as Claudius, needed a victory to burnish their dignity and glory. Claudius was not a military man, and that lack put him at risk of deposition. Britain was a place for expansion, and, so, the Romans expanded.
Unfortunately, the Romans found that they had expanded into something like Afghanistan. Lambshead notes that Britain had multiple legions assigned to it. The density of soldiers along Hadrian’s Wall was more than found along the Rhine.
This is strange since Britain did not have a substantial frontier. Scotland and Ireland were threats, but nothing like the Germans in the unlimited expanse of Germany. Yet, for four centuries, Britain was one of the most heavily militarized parts of the Empire.
Lambshead reasons that the problem was not conventional military threats. Instead, the Roman empire was constantly dealing with internal threats from bandits (Bagudae) and deserters. Lambshead argues that London was burned twice by deserting troops. Troops were motivated to desert because England was a poor posting and, paradoxically, Roman troops in Britain had gone native. They had married into the British community and did not want to be assigned elsewhere in the Empire.
What the troops were dealing with was raiding parties and bandits. Lambshead points out that the auxiliaries assigned to Britain were often cavalry, which would be more appropriate for chasing down raiding parties.
British Legions also had a tradition of revolt. Dissatisfied legions would often promote their commander to Empire. And why shouldn’t they? There is not much glory or loot to be gotten from chasing down raiding parties. Typically, these ventures failed (except in the notorious case of Constantine the Great.)
Lambshead argues that classical culture did not sink deeply into Britain. Rome made an effort to establish classical culture for the first one hundred years, but after that, it confined itself to protecting strong points and the roads that connect them. Lambshead makes the interesting point that while we think in terms of maps from the overhead perspective, a Roman would have thought in terms of point-to-point navigation, like a subway map.
As such, there might have been Roman culture centers surrounded by a sea of Brythonic culture.
The Roman withdrawal from Britain was not a planned event. It was the result of (a) another Roman pretender taking his troops south out of Britain (b) followed by the Barbarian conspiracy that resulted in the collapse of the Roman line along the Rhine. The British troops in northern Gaul were defeated by the legitimate Emperor and the collapse of the Imperial position in Gaul prevented any reinforcement or return of British troops in Britain.
Fait accompli.
For the Romans in Britain, there was a power vacuum. Southern Briain was hit hardest because it was most dependent on the Imperial infrastructure, particularly the flow of Roman gold into Britain. One solution to the power vacuum problem was for Roman magnates to hire Saxon muscle for security. This was initially workable but at some point, the Saxons noticed that they weren’t getting paid and they outnumbered the Romans.
Lambshead also notes that DNA evidence indicates that there was no mixing of Saxon and British genes until the sixth century, nearly two hundred years after the Saxon invasion. Lambshead believes that the reason for this was that the communities were kept separate based on language and class. The Saxons had more status, which lead the British to adopting Saxon culture. (Also, the Saxons had a working culture, unlike the British who might have lost a lot of skills necessary for surviving a post-Roman apocalypse.)
This a short, accessible and interesting read.
John Lambshead begins with a basic question: Why do we speak English?
Britain was under Roman rule for nearly four centuries – from 43 AD to 410 AD. That’s a long time. Gaul and Spain were under Roman rule for only about one hundred years longer than Britain. The area that became Romania was under Roman rule for only a century. All three areas – France, Spain, and Romania – speak a language that had its roots in Latin.
But English does not.
Worse, English does not show the influence of Latin that we might expect if there had been a vibrant Roman culture in Britain when the Saxons showed up. For that matter, Brythonic – the Celtic language spoken by British natives – had little influence on Anglo-Saxon apart from topographical features.
This insight leads Lambshead on an expedition through the history of Roman Britain. I have to admit that I thought I knew more about Roman Britain than I actually knew. I had a broad outline that Britain was conquered by Claudius, a sedate Roman culture was planted, things were fine, until suddenly in 410 AD, the Roman Empire pulled out of Britain, leaving the locals to hire Saxons for security, until the wide open borders led to some kind of cultural replacement.
A lot of that is wrong, according to Lambshead, mostly the middle part.
The conquest part went well. Once the Romans developed enough a naval infrastructure which allowed them to get enough troops across the Channel, they won all heads-to-head battles with the Britons. This allowed them to set up their command places and impose control over southern Britain.
Lambshead points out that the logic of conquest for Rome was not the logic we apply. The Romans were not looking for economic returns. Instead, Emperors, such as Claudius, needed a victory to burnish their dignity and glory. Claudius was not a military man, and that lack put him at risk of deposition. Britain was a place for expansion, and, so, the Romans expanded.
Unfortunately, the Romans found that they had expanded into something like Afghanistan. Lambshead notes that Britain had multiple legions assigned to it. The density of soldiers along Hadrian’s Wall was more than found along the Rhine.
This is strange since Britain did not have a substantial frontier. Scotland and Ireland were threats, but nothing like the Germans in the unlimited expanse of Germany. Yet, for four centuries, Britain was one of the most heavily militarized parts of the Empire.
Lambshead reasons that the problem was not conventional military threats. Instead, the Roman empire was constantly dealing with internal threats from bandits (Bagudae) and deserters. Lambshead argues that London was burned twice by deserting troops. Troops were motivated to desert because England was a poor posting and, paradoxically, Roman troops in Britain had gone native. They had married into the British community and did not want to be assigned elsewhere in the Empire.
What the troops were dealing with was raiding parties and bandits. Lambshead points out that the auxiliaries assigned to Britain were often cavalry, which would be more appropriate for chasing down raiding parties.
British Legions also had a tradition of revolt. Dissatisfied legions would often promote their commander to Empire. And why shouldn’t they? There is not much glory or loot to be gotten from chasing down raiding parties. Typically, these ventures failed (except in the notorious case of Constantine the Great.)
Lambshead argues that classical culture did not sink deeply into Britain. Rome made an effort to establish classical culture for the first one hundred years, but after that, it confined itself to protecting strong points and the roads that connect them. Lambshead makes the interesting point that while we think in terms of maps from the overhead perspective, a Roman would have thought in terms of point-to-point navigation, like a subway map.
As such, there might have been Roman culture centers surrounded by a sea of Brythonic culture.
The Roman withdrawal from Britain was not a planned event. It was the result of (a) another Roman pretender taking his troops south out of Britain (b) followed by the Barbarian conspiracy that resulted in the collapse of the Roman line along the Rhine. The British troops in northern Gaul were defeated by the legitimate Emperor and the collapse of the Imperial position in Gaul prevented any reinforcement or return of British troops in Britain.
Fait accompli.
For the Romans in Britain, there was a power vacuum. Southern Briain was hit hardest because it was most dependent on the Imperial infrastructure, particularly the flow of Roman gold into Britain. One solution to the power vacuum problem was for Roman magnates to hire Saxon muscle for security. This was initially workable but at some point, the Saxons noticed that they weren’t getting paid and they outnumbered the Romans.
Lambshead also notes that DNA evidence indicates that there was no mixing of Saxon and British genes until the sixth century, nearly two hundred years after the Saxon invasion. Lambshead believes that the reason for this was that the communities were kept separate based on language and class. The Saxons had more status, which lead the British to adopting Saxon culture. (Also, the Saxons had a working culture, unlike the British who might have lost a lot of skills necessary for surviving a post-Roman apocalypse.)
This a short, accessible and interesting read.
June 9, 2024
In this book Lambshead tries to investigate the reasons why Roman and Brythonic languages were completely replaced by a Germanic language with very few connections to either. He investigates the lack of assimilation of a considerable part of Britain into the Roman world and the depletion of Roman authority and cohesion particularly in south-east Britain towards the end of the Western Empire. In particular he tries to use genetic investigation to clarify the timeline of the mixing of any Germanic incomers with the indigenous Britons. He seems to argue that Saxon culture existed in parallel with failing Brythonic culture with no strong mixing until about 800AD.
While I think his thesis, that the whole Anglo-Saxon invasion thing is overblown, and that what we are dealing with is more likely a few small bands of armed interlopers being better prepared culturally for life outside of empire, is probably correct, in the development of his timeline there is a glaring omission of the terminus ante quem of St Augustine of Canterbury and the English Mission.
Quite simply, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Kent and Northumbria have to be sufficiently developed by 600AD to allow intermarriage into the Merovignan aristocracy and support clerics. It's not that Lambshead tries to explain this away, it's that he doesn't discuss it at all. St Augustine and Aethelbert of Kent get not one mention in the book, which I think is a bit of a glaring omission for someone trying to develop a timeline for Saxon Britain.
While I think his thesis, that the whole Anglo-Saxon invasion thing is overblown, and that what we are dealing with is more likely a few small bands of armed interlopers being better prepared culturally for life outside of empire, is probably correct, in the development of his timeline there is a glaring omission of the terminus ante quem of St Augustine of Canterbury and the English Mission.
Quite simply, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Kent and Northumbria have to be sufficiently developed by 600AD to allow intermarriage into the Merovignan aristocracy and support clerics. It's not that Lambshead tries to explain this away, it's that he doesn't discuss it at all. St Augustine and Aethelbert of Kent get not one mention in the book, which I think is a bit of a glaring omission for someone trying to develop a timeline for Saxon Britain.
March 18, 2024
Interesting ideas made dull
There's an interesting theory buried in this book--as suggested by the title--but it is surrounded by a pile of data that seems unnecessarily focused on the details of Roman leadership struggles. The basic fact is that Roman civilization failed in Britain, and it would have been more informative to focus on the specific effects of that failure than to provide a slow-motion chronicle of the competing emperors.
The theory itself seems logical: the collapse of the Roman economy in Britain largely depopulated the east and south of Britain, since even food production had been controlled centrally by the Romans for centuries. That left largely empty land for Saxons to occupy at will, without much resistance until the new Saxon kingdoms grew large enough to butt up against the Celtic tribes in the west and north (which had absorbed most of what was left of Roman presence in Britain). Instead of having to conquer a thriving civilization with its own language--as the Normans found necessary a few centuries later--the Saxons were able to establish their language without competition.
This book would have been much more interesting if the author had focused on helping the reader to envision the narrative instead of supplying dry facts in the style of a dissertation.
There's an interesting theory buried in this book--as suggested by the title--but it is surrounded by a pile of data that seems unnecessarily focused on the details of Roman leadership struggles. The basic fact is that Roman civilization failed in Britain, and it would have been more informative to focus on the specific effects of that failure than to provide a slow-motion chronicle of the competing emperors.
The theory itself seems logical: the collapse of the Roman economy in Britain largely depopulated the east and south of Britain, since even food production had been controlled centrally by the Romans for centuries. That left largely empty land for Saxons to occupy at will, without much resistance until the new Saxon kingdoms grew large enough to butt up against the Celtic tribes in the west and north (which had absorbed most of what was left of Roman presence in Britain). Instead of having to conquer a thriving civilization with its own language--as the Normans found necessary a few centuries later--the Saxons were able to establish their language without competition.
This book would have been much more interesting if the author had focused on helping the reader to envision the narrative instead of supplying dry facts in the style of a dissertation.
January 12, 2025
This is a fascinating book about the collapse of Roman society in Britain, and the subsequent domination of local Brythonic culture by Anglo-Saxon migrants. The work has a much sharper focus on the former than I expected, largely due to the much greater body of available evidence for the Roman period compared to what comes after. As such, there are many insightful discussions of the causes and consequences of system collapse, both in Roman Britain and the Empire more broadly. I would recommend the book for these alone.
The central hypothesis of the book is: Britain was never properly integrated into the empire, became a hotbed for rebellion, and collapsed utterly when the Empire withdrew. This allowed Anglo-Saxons to migrate into a sparsely populated land and dominate what remained of the local culture with their own, more sophisticated culture, instead of invading a post-Roman state (as was previously supposed, and as happened in many other parts of the Western Empire). It's a compelling hypothesis, but a novel one, and difficult to accept or reject without a much deeper understanding of the history of Britain around this era.
The writing is good, although leans towards a 'pop-history' style over a more timeless approach. I would highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in system collapse, Roman or British history.
The central hypothesis of the book is: Britain was never properly integrated into the empire, became a hotbed for rebellion, and collapsed utterly when the Empire withdrew. This allowed Anglo-Saxons to migrate into a sparsely populated land and dominate what remained of the local culture with their own, more sophisticated culture, instead of invading a post-Roman state (as was previously supposed, and as happened in many other parts of the Western Empire). It's a compelling hypothesis, but a novel one, and difficult to accept or reject without a much deeper understanding of the history of Britain around this era.
The writing is good, although leans towards a 'pop-history' style over a more timeless approach. I would highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in system collapse, Roman or British history.
July 21, 2024
fascinating analysis and hypothesis
Starting from a totally different scientic field’s perspective - ecological study of biological populations and events - Lambshead reviews available archeological and historic evidence and marries it with current scientific thinking about climate, population genetics etc to produce a coherent theory and justify it.
The analysis of Roman occupation of Britain is comprehensive and plausible. His explanation for the dominance of germanic language roots over brythonic in modern English is elegant.
Somewhat repetitive and at times heavy with academic references, but chronological ordered and only occasionally using professional jargon.
Well worth the journey with him if one has any interest in either topic.
Starting from a totally different scientic field’s perspective - ecological study of biological populations and events - Lambshead reviews available archeological and historic evidence and marries it with current scientific thinking about climate, population genetics etc to produce a coherent theory and justify it.
The analysis of Roman occupation of Britain is comprehensive and plausible. His explanation for the dominance of germanic language roots over brythonic in modern English is elegant.
Somewhat repetitive and at times heavy with academic references, but chronological ordered and only occasionally using professional jargon.
Well worth the journey with him if one has any interest in either topic.
June 7, 2025
This was an extremely impressive academic work. Roman history is so expansive and often is presented with a Birds Eye view. Roman Britain is a very interesting topic because it was so different than any other province. I enjoyed that the author established clear aims and kept focus. The conclusion sections at the end of each chapter tie the material together very nicely and I wish more authors did this. Academic works such as this often get too bogged down in details and drag on to the point where it becomes disorganized. I am sure this book could’ve been much longer but the length was perfect for a reader.
August 1, 2025
The author asks an interesting question: Why, unlike other areas Rome conquered in Western Europe, did the British not adopt a Romance language? He argues that Britain was significantly different in several ways from other societies Rome conquered which made it impossible to incorporate into the structure and fabric of the Empire. It had fewer ties to Roman culture through either trade or military participation. It had no real urban culture. It cost far more to try, and fail, to pacify the Britains than the resources extracted from the country. And it was the launching pad for numerous attempts by ambitious generals with armies behind them. It proved to be too expensive.
April 9, 2024
Interesting new argument for the changes in British Roman history. Makes the point that rather than the Romans simply leaving the country in 400 AD, swathes of them stayed behind. Yes, other raiders came to our shores but somehow they all got mixed in together. I remember being taught as a very little girl that the years after the collapse of the Roman Empire in Britain, that these were the Dark Ages. But now, thanks to carbon dating, we can get a better grip on eventualities. Bottom line is that through later years those Romano-British just got absorbed into other tribes and factions.
March 20, 2024
Systematic review of the fall of Roman rule in Britain and how events at the time and since combined to mean that the British Isles do not speak a Latin language today, unlike Gaul or other areas of the Empire. Well researched - some chapters a bit more academic (and dry) in nature vs. others, but still a good read.
March 29, 2024
Excellent work - needs maps
This is a fascinating, in-depth account of the Roman occupation of Britain. I would have given it five stars, but I was disappointed that the Kindle edition which I read did not have a single map. Many locations mentioned no longer exist, and being able to place them would help complete the big picture.
This is a fascinating, in-depth account of the Roman occupation of Britain. I would have given it five stars, but I was disappointed that the Kindle edition which I read did not have a single map. Many locations mentioned no longer exist, and being able to place them would help complete the big picture.
October 26, 2025
Interesting explanation
This is an academic book. It provides a plausible explanation for the disappearance of Brythonic from much of England.
We can never know the whole story, but presumably a similar process led to the disappearance of the native Gallic languages.
The author has modern techniques available to him which traditional historians didn’t.
Worth reading.
This is an academic book. It provides a plausible explanation for the disappearance of Brythonic from much of England.
We can never know the whole story, but presumably a similar process led to the disappearance of the native Gallic languages.
The author has modern techniques available to him which traditional historians didn’t.
Worth reading.
May 12, 2024
This is not a narrative history of the Roman tenure in Britain. It's more of a survey of current scientific knowledge of the period and attempts to answer the question asked in the title. It's a bit dry.
November 12, 2024
Food for thought
This book builds on themes seen in other books that Britannia was less Roman than we thought. Definite food for thought , but it doesn’t address the idea others propose that a Germanic language might have been spoken in southern Britain in Roman times.
This book builds on themes seen in other books that Britannia was less Roman than we thought. Definite food for thought , but it doesn’t address the idea others propose that a Germanic language might have been spoken in southern Britain in Roman times.
October 27, 2025
A nonfiction look at the history of Roman Britain. This book is a slow read, but is very informative and interesting. It follows the Roman conquest of Britain and how and why Britain became the country it is.
March 22, 2024
Very interesting
Read
February 8, 2025I tried to open it, but the program kept me running in circles. Any suggestions? So far very disappointed.
August 10, 2025
Probably an excellent text
Too detailed for recreational reading with British geography too detailed for this American. Enough was retweeted to make it worthwhile
Too detailed for recreational reading with British geography too detailed for this American. Enough was retweeted to make it worthwhile
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews