What do you think?
Rate this book
UnRoman Britain: Exposing the Great Myth of Britannia
When we think of Roman Britain we tend to think of a land of togas and richly decorated palaces with Britons happily going about their much improved daily business under the benign gaze of Rome. This image is to a great extent a fiction. In fact, Britons were some of the least enthusiastic members of the Roman Empire. A few adopted Roman ways to curry favor with the invaders. A lot never adopted a Roman lifestyle at all and remained unimpressed and driven by deep-seated tribal division. It wasn't until the late third/early fourth century that a small minority of landowners grew fat on the benefits of trade and enjoyed the kind of lifestyle we have been taught to associate with the period. Britannia was a far-away province which, whilst useful for some major economic reserves, fast became a costly and troublesome concern for Rome, much like Iraq for the British government today. Huge efforts by the state to control the hearts and minds of the Britons were met with at worst hostile resistance and rebellion, and at best by steadfast indifference. The end of the Roman Empire largely came as "business as usual" for the vast majority of Britons as they simply hadn't adopted the Roman way of life in the first place.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2010
42 people are currently reading
198 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 - 15 of 15 reviews
August 23, 2013
UnRoman Britain argues that “Britain, although it may have been a formal part of the Roman Empire for nearly 400 years, was never fully Roman” (p. 21). Like the British in India or the Americans in Iraq, the Roman occupiers established pockets of their culture and co-opted the ruling elites but left the countryside and its people alone. Pre-Roman Celtic culture survived and re-emerged when the legions evacuated c. AD 410.
Sadly, I’ve allowed a backlog of reviews to accumulate on my desk. This book, which I read more than a year ago, is one of them. But, based on the notes I took, here are some of the points the authors make:
The authors don’t discount “Romanization” but argue that its influence in Britain was far less than previously thought. “Romanization” is not a myth but it was never a conscious policy of any republican or imperial government. Rome imposed a distinctive order wherever it held sway; and, in some cases, they transformed the region (Gaul & Spain), in others, the Roman veneer was swiftly thrown off (Britain).
Turning aside from the content of the book, physically, it’s an impressive volume. Russell and Laycock have provided numerous photos (many in color), drawings, maps and diagrams that illustrate British lifestyles and the paucity of Roman influences.
This is definitely a book I would recommend.
* The issue of tribal identification is a fascinating study in itself, and I would recommend Peter Heather and Walter Goffart, among others, for those interested in recent research into the matter.
** For the interested, John McWhorter's Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold Story of English, which I reviewed several years ago, offers a brief but fascinating explanation for this.
Sadly, I’ve allowed a backlog of reviews to accumulate on my desk. This book, which I read more than a year ago, is one of them. But, based on the notes I took, here are some of the points the authors make:
- Membership in tribal groups was fluid.* It’s a mistake to look at a map of pre-Roman Britain with its clearly defined tribes and imagine it reflects a late-Iron Age reality.
- After Boudicca’s revolt, Rome imposed a more traditional provincial government. It reorganized existing towns and established others along traditional Graeco-Roman lines, although the archaeological evidence indicates that few were very successful – at least compared to similar foundations in Gaul and Spain.
- The Graeco-Roman pantheon appears to have had little influence outside of urban centers and military foundations.
- While the Romans ruthlessly exploited Wales’ and Cornwall’s mineral wealth, there’s little evidence that that bounty found its way into the island’s economy.
- Not surprisingly, most of the evidence for Romanization is found in the south and east, the coasts nearest the mainland and most tightly integrated in the empirewide economy.
- “By contrast with Gaul…the British aristocracy seem…to have remained insular and uninterested in joining the imperial power structures right to the end” (p. 178).
- After the legions left, Roman culture disappears from the archaeological record – no coins, no building, no manufacturies, no villas. This can’t be attributed to the Anglo-Saxons as they didn’t arrive until after 450. The authors posit several reasons for this: (1) Rapid fragmentation into pre-Roman tribal polities. There was no self-identification as “British,” unlike Gaul or Spain, where distinct Germanic kingdoms arose. (2) There was no well-established Christian presence that might have mitigated the effects of the secular government’s disappearance. (3) As the book hopes to show, what Romanization there was, was a thin veneer, easily cast aside.
- The final chapter of the book looks at Celtic Britain’s transformation into Anglo-Saxon England. A process more thorough and far quicker than Romanization despite indications that the number of Anglo-Saxon immigrants was very low (<100,000?). Again, the authors offer some reasons for this: (1) Anglo-Saxon culture was similar to Celtic, much more so than Rome’s. (2) Anglo-Saxons were infiltrating a country where ancient traditions were at a low ebb; the Romans had invaded at a high-water mark for Celtic civilization. (3) Because of the limited number of Anglo-Saxons, it’s likely they married British women (evident linguistically in Old English, which owes much to Celtic dialects, especially its syntax**, and succeeding generations were raised in a hybrid culture. (4) Roman culture was in decline, discredited. (5) And, though limited as noted above, Anglo-Saxon immigration was still far greater than Roman.
The authors don’t discount “Romanization” but argue that its influence in Britain was far less than previously thought. “Romanization” is not a myth but it was never a conscious policy of any republican or imperial government. Rome imposed a distinctive order wherever it held sway; and, in some cases, they transformed the region (Gaul & Spain), in others, the Roman veneer was swiftly thrown off (Britain).
Turning aside from the content of the book, physically, it’s an impressive volume. Russell and Laycock have provided numerous photos (many in color), drawings, maps and diagrams that illustrate British lifestyles and the paucity of Roman influences.
This is definitely a book I would recommend.
* The issue of tribal identification is a fascinating study in itself, and I would recommend Peter Heather and Walter Goffart, among others, for those interested in recent research into the matter.
** For the interested, John McWhorter's Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold Story of English, which I reviewed several years ago, offers a brief but fascinating explanation for this.
June 21, 2024
UnRoman Britain – exposing the great myth of Britannia – Miles Russell and Stuart Laycock, 2011, 300 pages excluding endnotes, etc
In order to understand the very earliest years of Anglo-Saxon England, it's important to know what condition the place was in following the withdrawal of Rome.
This book makes the argument that Britain wasn't that romanised, being peripheral to the Empire and never really buying in politically or culturally to Rome. However, the evidence cited, such as the limited spread of Roman influenced archaeological remains being thin on the ground and not especially impressive in themselves can also be read to show that the place was actually Romanised. The same can be said regarding language. The authors don't go into this in much depth, as there isn't a lot of evidence regarding what was spoken by the bulk of the people within the lowland zone, but all of the inscriptions are in Latin and there is nothing in any pre-Roman language and indeed, in later chapters they do tend towards Latin having been widely spoken.
An argument is made that Britain was apt to revolt, more so than the many other regions that revolted, but this doesn't take into account the special circumstances of Britain. A strong armed force, concentrated in one small location and the sea ensuring enough isolation for things to begin. It also ignores the fact that none of the revolts stopped at the channel and began to sing, 'Who do you think you are kidding, Augustus', instead they carried on into Gaul and established, or re-established a functional Roman state, not an UnRoman one. None of these revolts involved forming anything other than a state that was Roman.
The Unilateral Declaration of Independence idea is accepted rather uncritically in this book. They acknowledge that Honorious' letter recognising it may have been concerned with Bruttium, instead of Britain, but it still seems incredible that the UDI of an entire province was just accepted. Emperors may have let areas slip out of control temporarily, but they were still seen as part of the Imperium. In addition to this, some, no idea if it were all, of the people who mattered still saw themselves as being Roman, making appeals for military and doctrinal support to the empire after this date, which makes the UDI seem more than shaky.
Various imperial references to the island as being not quite Roman are mentioned a few times and whilst these could be read as the place being UnRoman, I think a more accurate reading would be provincial, the sticks, the back of beyond. Think of a local estate or village that people look down upon and you'll get the same tone in the descriptions, such as the wonder of Bonus the British poet wasn't so much that he was good, but that he came from Britain and did it at all, etc.
Much is made of hints of the pre-Roman tribal structure being intact as seen through the survival of the civitates, but this just seems to be the civitates representing an area, instead of an old tribe reasserting itself as an ongoing entity. It's never easy to change a boundary, as folk tend to resent losing land (think of how it can take 20 years or more for the council to buy out and demolish a row of houses to widen a road) and these tend to become ossified. Roman street plans are still in existence for good reason. Mentions of tribal civitates on lead exports may just reflect the area they came from, rather than that the tribe itself is an identity with any currency – after all, many of us go to the Odeon to watch a film and it has no real connection to the past. The notion of the post Roman inhabitants having oral folk memories of their pre-Roman culture are interesting, but 400 years is a long time. The authors cite this as a possible route for assimilation with the incoming Anglo-Saxons, as their pre-Roman culture wasn't that far removed from that of the Anglo-Saxons, especially as the Anglo-Saxons had been Romanised to some extent themselves. However, I daresay that any agrarian 'barbarian' entity within a similar environment and economy would have far more similarities than differences.
The two contrasting views I've read are:
Guy Hassell has made a strong argument for a heavily Romanised villa zone along the highland/lowland boundary, with possible enclaves of Saxon foederati inland, instead of at the coasts.
Robin Fleming's The Material Fall of Roman Britain makes a compelling case for a catastrophic collapse following the end of Roman Britain (think Threads, but without Reece Dinsdale getting nuked) and this is very much at odds with the idea of Britannia being so insufficiently Romanised for its ending to make much difference.
And these make a far more convincing argument that much of Britain was Romanised. I'm no expert on Roman Britain, so please don't take my comments as the final word on it.
HOWEVER,
Where this book comes to life for me was the 9th chapter, which took us from UnRoman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England. All too many books concentrate on Roman OR Anglo-Saxon England and few cover the bit in-between, except in a cursory manner before moving onto the better documented later periods. This section was fascinating. I'm not sure it was worth the £12 cost of the book alone (no postage, as I used our youth's Prime), but it makes it worth keeping the book and not passing it on to someone else who may enjoy it.
Interesting things mentioned:
No one minted coins in Britain following the Roman withdrawal. This we all know, but they make it clear that the implication of this is that no one was in a position to do so. Previously coinage was a powerful political statement and it is telling that there wasn't a leader here who was strong enough to do so. This points to small political entities that may not have been that stable.
Possible wars between the civitates after the fall of Roman Britain and some of the dykes may belong to this period. These wars provide a context for the importation of mercenaries – which was a very Roman thing to do – and which may be reflected in Anglo-Saxon settlements being located on the borders of civitates and not in the main centre of them (such as around Lincoln, but not in) and why so many of the later kingdoms follow the boundaries of the civitates that may have hired them.
Regarding Brittany, the place-name and saint connections are with the west of Britain instead of the east, so any settlers there don't appear to have been refugees from the incoming Anglo-Saxons.
Gildas mentions Britons still living in the east of the country, but says they would be better off dead – the important thing is that they were still there and his account of fleeing Britons could refer to warlike events around his own time, rather than the initial adventus.
A strong argument is made for assimilation between Britons and Anglo-Saxons, with a fusing of art forms, or continental styles being done differently in England, modified as it were by the presence of Britons. Ie, enamelling appearing on Anglo-Saxon metal work, which is a major aspect of Celtic culture, but not of continental.
Regarding language and place-names, the point is made that Devon has just as high a proportion of English place-names as does Kent and no one is suggesting that their naming involved the massacre or expulsion of the native population. Also, it was noted that we don't actually know that many Roman place-names within Britain and it's possible that if we did, then an apparently English place-name could be spotted as being an evolution of a Roman one, such as with Eoforwic. The spread of OE may have been helped by the spread of Latin loan words within the continental Saxons through contact with Rome and it also being spoken by the Britons. Ine's law code and the differing wergilds is briefly mentioned in the context of assimilation as whilst many people have shown that it values an Anglo-Saxon more highly than the Welsh, it also values a British noble more highly than a free born Anglo-Saxon and should probably be seen as a way of easing newly incorporated zones to their west into Wessex.
This book is an easy read, and also one that is certainly worth considering to read.
NB, there is a typo on pg 230, where for 'Rome was later Romanised' it should be read as 'Britannia was later Romanised.'
In order to understand the very earliest years of Anglo-Saxon England, it's important to know what condition the place was in following the withdrawal of Rome.
This book makes the argument that Britain wasn't that romanised, being peripheral to the Empire and never really buying in politically or culturally to Rome. However, the evidence cited, such as the limited spread of Roman influenced archaeological remains being thin on the ground and not especially impressive in themselves can also be read to show that the place was actually Romanised. The same can be said regarding language. The authors don't go into this in much depth, as there isn't a lot of evidence regarding what was spoken by the bulk of the people within the lowland zone, but all of the inscriptions are in Latin and there is nothing in any pre-Roman language and indeed, in later chapters they do tend towards Latin having been widely spoken.
An argument is made that Britain was apt to revolt, more so than the many other regions that revolted, but this doesn't take into account the special circumstances of Britain. A strong armed force, concentrated in one small location and the sea ensuring enough isolation for things to begin. It also ignores the fact that none of the revolts stopped at the channel and began to sing, 'Who do you think you are kidding, Augustus', instead they carried on into Gaul and established, or re-established a functional Roman state, not an UnRoman one. None of these revolts involved forming anything other than a state that was Roman.
The Unilateral Declaration of Independence idea is accepted rather uncritically in this book. They acknowledge that Honorious' letter recognising it may have been concerned with Bruttium, instead of Britain, but it still seems incredible that the UDI of an entire province was just accepted. Emperors may have let areas slip out of control temporarily, but they were still seen as part of the Imperium. In addition to this, some, no idea if it were all, of the people who mattered still saw themselves as being Roman, making appeals for military and doctrinal support to the empire after this date, which makes the UDI seem more than shaky.
Various imperial references to the island as being not quite Roman are mentioned a few times and whilst these could be read as the place being UnRoman, I think a more accurate reading would be provincial, the sticks, the back of beyond. Think of a local estate or village that people look down upon and you'll get the same tone in the descriptions, such as the wonder of Bonus the British poet wasn't so much that he was good, but that he came from Britain and did it at all, etc.
Much is made of hints of the pre-Roman tribal structure being intact as seen through the survival of the civitates, but this just seems to be the civitates representing an area, instead of an old tribe reasserting itself as an ongoing entity. It's never easy to change a boundary, as folk tend to resent losing land (think of how it can take 20 years or more for the council to buy out and demolish a row of houses to widen a road) and these tend to become ossified. Roman street plans are still in existence for good reason. Mentions of tribal civitates on lead exports may just reflect the area they came from, rather than that the tribe itself is an identity with any currency – after all, many of us go to the Odeon to watch a film and it has no real connection to the past. The notion of the post Roman inhabitants having oral folk memories of their pre-Roman culture are interesting, but 400 years is a long time. The authors cite this as a possible route for assimilation with the incoming Anglo-Saxons, as their pre-Roman culture wasn't that far removed from that of the Anglo-Saxons, especially as the Anglo-Saxons had been Romanised to some extent themselves. However, I daresay that any agrarian 'barbarian' entity within a similar environment and economy would have far more similarities than differences.
The two contrasting views I've read are:
Guy Hassell has made a strong argument for a heavily Romanised villa zone along the highland/lowland boundary, with possible enclaves of Saxon foederati inland, instead of at the coasts.
Robin Fleming's The Material Fall of Roman Britain makes a compelling case for a catastrophic collapse following the end of Roman Britain (think Threads, but without Reece Dinsdale getting nuked) and this is very much at odds with the idea of Britannia being so insufficiently Romanised for its ending to make much difference.
And these make a far more convincing argument that much of Britain was Romanised. I'm no expert on Roman Britain, so please don't take my comments as the final word on it.
HOWEVER,
Where this book comes to life for me was the 9th chapter, which took us from UnRoman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England. All too many books concentrate on Roman OR Anglo-Saxon England and few cover the bit in-between, except in a cursory manner before moving onto the better documented later periods. This section was fascinating. I'm not sure it was worth the £12 cost of the book alone (no postage, as I used our youth's Prime), but it makes it worth keeping the book and not passing it on to someone else who may enjoy it.
Interesting things mentioned:
No one minted coins in Britain following the Roman withdrawal. This we all know, but they make it clear that the implication of this is that no one was in a position to do so. Previously coinage was a powerful political statement and it is telling that there wasn't a leader here who was strong enough to do so. This points to small political entities that may not have been that stable.
Possible wars between the civitates after the fall of Roman Britain and some of the dykes may belong to this period. These wars provide a context for the importation of mercenaries – which was a very Roman thing to do – and which may be reflected in Anglo-Saxon settlements being located on the borders of civitates and not in the main centre of them (such as around Lincoln, but not in) and why so many of the later kingdoms follow the boundaries of the civitates that may have hired them.
Regarding Brittany, the place-name and saint connections are with the west of Britain instead of the east, so any settlers there don't appear to have been refugees from the incoming Anglo-Saxons.
Gildas mentions Britons still living in the east of the country, but says they would be better off dead – the important thing is that they were still there and his account of fleeing Britons could refer to warlike events around his own time, rather than the initial adventus.
A strong argument is made for assimilation between Britons and Anglo-Saxons, with a fusing of art forms, or continental styles being done differently in England, modified as it were by the presence of Britons. Ie, enamelling appearing on Anglo-Saxon metal work, which is a major aspect of Celtic culture, but not of continental.
Regarding language and place-names, the point is made that Devon has just as high a proportion of English place-names as does Kent and no one is suggesting that their naming involved the massacre or expulsion of the native population. Also, it was noted that we don't actually know that many Roman place-names within Britain and it's possible that if we did, then an apparently English place-name could be spotted as being an evolution of a Roman one, such as with Eoforwic. The spread of OE may have been helped by the spread of Latin loan words within the continental Saxons through contact with Rome and it also being spoken by the Britons. Ine's law code and the differing wergilds is briefly mentioned in the context of assimilation as whilst many people have shown that it values an Anglo-Saxon more highly than the Welsh, it also values a British noble more highly than a free born Anglo-Saxon and should probably be seen as a way of easing newly incorporated zones to their west into Wessex.
This book is an easy read, and also one that is certainly worth considering to read.
NB, there is a typo on pg 230, where for 'Rome was later Romanised' it should be read as 'Britannia was later Romanised.'
April 5, 2021
I came to this book with high expectations, only to find myself disappointed.
Firstly, it's a short book with only ten chapters. Secondly, the book is an uneven mix of tabloid tirades and archaeological insight - frankly, much of this book is nothing more than a rant, and much of the archaeology that is actually discussed adds little depth to the argument despite the slogan of "UnRoman Britain" that the authors repeatedly assert.
Even worse is that because this is a short book so much is missed - there's no real discussion of changes that would have affected many ordinary people in Britain, such as new tools, new crops, and new diseases. Additionally, the subjects for actual discussion are brief and far between with some surprising omissions, such as nothing at all mentioned about the missing ninth legion, or much discussion of the limited of town development through the second century which would surely be a key argument.
All of which result in a frustrating book that spends too much time with angry posturing, and too little time creating a narrative that matters. There could have been a wonderful and in-depth argument made about how Roman culture may or may not have touched people in Britain in different ways, but instead this book is an opportunity lost.
There are some useful points of reference in it, but overall this book veers repeatedly between trying to be populist and trying to be academic, and it never really finds a decent balance between both. The result is a study that lacks depth and fails to properly justify it's own argument.
Firstly, it's a short book with only ten chapters. Secondly, the book is an uneven mix of tabloid tirades and archaeological insight - frankly, much of this book is nothing more than a rant, and much of the archaeology that is actually discussed adds little depth to the argument despite the slogan of "UnRoman Britain" that the authors repeatedly assert.
Even worse is that because this is a short book so much is missed - there's no real discussion of changes that would have affected many ordinary people in Britain, such as new tools, new crops, and new diseases. Additionally, the subjects for actual discussion are brief and far between with some surprising omissions, such as nothing at all mentioned about the missing ninth legion, or much discussion of the limited of town development through the second century which would surely be a key argument.
All of which result in a frustrating book that spends too much time with angry posturing, and too little time creating a narrative that matters. There could have been a wonderful and in-depth argument made about how Roman culture may or may not have touched people in Britain in different ways, but instead this book is an opportunity lost.
There are some useful points of reference in it, but overall this book veers repeatedly between trying to be populist and trying to be academic, and it never really finds a decent balance between both. The result is a study that lacks depth and fails to properly justify it's own argument.
February 10, 2013
This is a good, solid well-researched book on Roman Britain. It takes a fresh look at the evidence and comes to some novel conclusions. I am not sure I agree with everything he says, but it is all interesting. You do need to have a bit of basic background knowledge to get the most from this book. A great read.
November 27, 2025
With a good premise for looking into the reality of Roman rule in their Britannic province and addressing the bias that is inherent to looking back at "the Roman empire" equating its presence as the stronger culture and thus the logical outcome of any Roman occupation; unRoman Britain fails to make any solid punches and in the end does not go beyond, "if it had lasted longer we might have spoken a Latin derived language as well".
To adress that last point first, I have two rebuttals to that, Romanian and Basque. The Romanian language survived and became dominant in a region that was not for even a hundred years part of the empire, clinging to life among descendants of the Roman legions who chose to stay when Aurelian pulled out. So to argue that if Roman Britain had lasted a bit longer it might have turned out differently is not such a strong position. I also point out the survival of the Basque language in a province that was part of the empire for longer then Britain, again, the whole time would have made the difference falls flat when you think about it and step away from Britain as a an exception in the Roman Empire.
Although, a few times Mike Russel does refer to north of Spain and Bretagne as equally tribal regions as were Cornwall and a greater Wales as areas resisting or at least not embracing Roman culture; but does not take it to perhaps unwelcome conclusions. Speaking of comparisons, he does at time make a connection to colonialism of the 18th and 19th century but he never goes all in in what he at times strays into, namely post colonial theory. Or, and I am now straying deep into the big civilisation comparison theories, how about China? Imperial China had and now modern China has, non Chinese languages and cultures in its borders in particular the Yunnan and Sichuan provinces. Like the Britons these weren't part of a rival state such as the Tibetans or an expansive cultures such as the mongols or Turks but without connotation tribal. Indian empires such as the Mughals likewise had "tribal" peoples within their border. The point I am making here is that for big culture exporting empires it was normal to have peoples nearby who were their own thing. The issue I have with Mike Russel way at looking at Roman Britain is that he treats it as an exceptional thing both for the Roman empire itself as for imperium as a concept, neither of which is true.
However I do think that he makes fair good points when it comes to dissecting the archeological record of Roman Britain, stressing the importance of elites adopting culture rather then treating every villa as a foreign exploiter. Whilst also pointing out that Hadrian Wall and the Military focus of the north hindered the development of a local indigenous elite with ever influx of foreign dignitaries with their capital, power and influence. At the same time Russel stresses time again and again the continuity of hill forts and Briton style of living, the husbandry dominated economy and local tribal identity precisely in large part due to little connection with the Roman network. Drinking wine, acquiring olive oil implied a willingness to engage with the foreign power that often results in adoption of other cultural trappings. Such as living in a style of house that the other side would respect, decorating a bathhouse with Celtic gods in Romanized form or wearing jewelry inspired by both cultures, a form of exchange that feels less like imposing and more of an active dialogue between unequal partners.
As a whole I think there are good points in the book and I appreciate the insane amount of picture, drawings, maps and objects featured but it also reads and feels as a couple of academic articles expanded and stitched together and several chapters on the wider Roman history feel a bit tacked on even if the focus is on when Britain came in the picture such as rebel emperor Albinus or the rogue generals of the 4th century. All and all, I can't really recommend it.
To adress that last point first, I have two rebuttals to that, Romanian and Basque. The Romanian language survived and became dominant in a region that was not for even a hundred years part of the empire, clinging to life among descendants of the Roman legions who chose to stay when Aurelian pulled out. So to argue that if Roman Britain had lasted a bit longer it might have turned out differently is not such a strong position. I also point out the survival of the Basque language in a province that was part of the empire for longer then Britain, again, the whole time would have made the difference falls flat when you think about it and step away from Britain as a an exception in the Roman Empire.
Although, a few times Mike Russel does refer to north of Spain and Bretagne as equally tribal regions as were Cornwall and a greater Wales as areas resisting or at least not embracing Roman culture; but does not take it to perhaps unwelcome conclusions. Speaking of comparisons, he does at time make a connection to colonialism of the 18th and 19th century but he never goes all in in what he at times strays into, namely post colonial theory. Or, and I am now straying deep into the big civilisation comparison theories, how about China? Imperial China had and now modern China has, non Chinese languages and cultures in its borders in particular the Yunnan and Sichuan provinces. Like the Britons these weren't part of a rival state such as the Tibetans or an expansive cultures such as the mongols or Turks but without connotation tribal. Indian empires such as the Mughals likewise had "tribal" peoples within their border. The point I am making here is that for big culture exporting empires it was normal to have peoples nearby who were their own thing. The issue I have with Mike Russel way at looking at Roman Britain is that he treats it as an exceptional thing both for the Roman empire itself as for imperium as a concept, neither of which is true.
However I do think that he makes fair good points when it comes to dissecting the archeological record of Roman Britain, stressing the importance of elites adopting culture rather then treating every villa as a foreign exploiter. Whilst also pointing out that Hadrian Wall and the Military focus of the north hindered the development of a local indigenous elite with ever influx of foreign dignitaries with their capital, power and influence. At the same time Russel stresses time again and again the continuity of hill forts and Briton style of living, the husbandry dominated economy and local tribal identity precisely in large part due to little connection with the Roman network. Drinking wine, acquiring olive oil implied a willingness to engage with the foreign power that often results in adoption of other cultural trappings. Such as living in a style of house that the other side would respect, decorating a bathhouse with Celtic gods in Romanized form or wearing jewelry inspired by both cultures, a form of exchange that feels less like imposing and more of an active dialogue between unequal partners.
As a whole I think there are good points in the book and I appreciate the insane amount of picture, drawings, maps and objects featured but it also reads and feels as a couple of academic articles expanded and stitched together and several chapters on the wider Roman history feel a bit tacked on even if the focus is on when Britain came in the picture such as rebel emperor Albinus or the rogue generals of the 4th century. All and all, I can't really recommend it.
May 31, 2024
An interesting and obviously well-researched read, UnRoman Britain works against or pushes against many of the themes about Roman Britain that many of us were taught at school, traditionally.
Possibly the most interesting chapter of all was the final one, where the whole argument is seen in the light of the British Empire, education in ancient languages and in the Roman & Greek classics by many who became administrators in that empire. This provided a mindset, a way of thinking about how Roman Britain was for the British people at the time and how its history was taught in schools over many years. The traditional Pax Romana I remember it being called by our classically trained head teacher in Junior School many years ago.
Finally, all this is mirrored in the light of the US & UK role in Iraq and Afghanistan and how the local population resisted westernisation and have turned strongly against western culture.
The discussion around Anglo Saxon immigration later in the book and how the author argues against the old theories of immigration into this country in post Roman times reflects some of the arguments I have read in other books about the so-called Dark Ages. That in itself is worth further reading and is a lot more satisfactory a theory than the almost genocidal wave theories of immigration we were traditionally taught. Lots to think about here....
Others have argued this probably better than I have and at more length in their reviews but after a lot of reading, these points feel like the nub of it, for me.
A good, if lengthy read but the subject and it's associated themes are very interesting. 4-stars, I think says it for me.
Possibly the most interesting chapter of all was the final one, where the whole argument is seen in the light of the British Empire, education in ancient languages and in the Roman & Greek classics by many who became administrators in that empire. This provided a mindset, a way of thinking about how Roman Britain was for the British people at the time and how its history was taught in schools over many years. The traditional Pax Romana I remember it being called by our classically trained head teacher in Junior School many years ago.
Finally, all this is mirrored in the light of the US & UK role in Iraq and Afghanistan and how the local population resisted westernisation and have turned strongly against western culture.
The discussion around Anglo Saxon immigration later in the book and how the author argues against the old theories of immigration into this country in post Roman times reflects some of the arguments I have read in other books about the so-called Dark Ages. That in itself is worth further reading and is a lot more satisfactory a theory than the almost genocidal wave theories of immigration we were traditionally taught. Lots to think about here....
Others have argued this probably better than I have and at more length in their reviews but after a lot of reading, these points feel like the nub of it, for me.
A good, if lengthy read but the subject and it's associated themes are very interesting. 4-stars, I think says it for me.
March 13, 2020
El título del libro lo dice todo: la ocupación romana de Britannia fue culturalmente muy superficial, como prueba que en muy poco tiempo desapareciera todo vestigio; luego lo revisaron un poco a partir del siglo XVIII y las glorias imperiales.
Tiene partes interesantes y por supuesto siempre se aprende algo. Mi favorito: cuando alguien aprende un idioma nuevo evita meter palabras del suyo materno porque sabe que es un error, pero sigue usando la gramática de su idioma materno de forma inconsciente. Por eso podemos determinar la influencia celta en el idioma anglosajón que sustituyó primero al latín de las élites y pronto también al idioma del pueblo.
Pero se hace largo, demasiado prolijo (enumeraciones constantes de tribus y ciudades, supongo que añaden rigor al libro pero se hace duro) y un tanto aburrido.
Tiene partes interesantes y por supuesto siempre se aprende algo. Mi favorito: cuando alguien aprende un idioma nuevo evita meter palabras del suyo materno porque sabe que es un error, pero sigue usando la gramática de su idioma materno de forma inconsciente. Por eso podemos determinar la influencia celta en el idioma anglosajón que sustituyó primero al latín de las élites y pronto también al idioma del pueblo.
Pero se hace largo, demasiado prolijo (enumeraciones constantes de tribus y ciudades, supongo que añaden rigor al libro pero se hace duro) y un tanto aburrido.
April 21, 2021
The Roman myth.
This is a book which disperses the mists associated with Roman Britain and helps to explain some historical anomalies. Why did the Celtic languages survive. Why is a Germanic rather than a romance language spoken in Britain. Why is there such a small Roman genetic foot print. Fascinating.
This is a book which disperses the mists associated with Roman Britain and helps to explain some historical anomalies. Why did the Celtic languages survive. Why is a Germanic rather than a romance language spoken in Britain. Why is there such a small Roman genetic foot print. Fascinating.
December 20, 2021
Russell's book charts the history of Britain during the Roman occupation and the what happened after Rome left. While a popular history the book like a lot of British history books assumes that all readers know the geography and landscape of modern Britain. The book needed more geographical context and maps for non-British readers to understand the places mentioned by the author.
December 29, 2022
I really enjoyed this... while the perspective is not a new one, by highlighting the 'unRoman' British under Roman domination, the authors provide a contrasting picture to many published accounts of the period. The language makes for easy reading, being scholarly but not bedeviled by indecipherable academic terminology.
June 7, 2018
I didn't finish this one.
The introduction sets out his premise, and I didn't feel I wanted to know all the details, so I took it back to the library after Chapter 3.
The introduction sets out his premise, and I didn't feel I wanted to know all the details, so I took it back to the library after Chapter 3.
October 15, 2021
4.5 stars.
October 23, 2022
A fascinating examination of the extent to which Britain did not become fully Roman in cultural terms, but was merely under Roman rule for a period.
January 21, 2024
Fascinating history of Roman Britain but from the perspective of how it was less Romanised than we perhaps think.
August 21, 2012
Compelling revisionist history presenting current archaeological, linguistic, and scientific thought on the 400 year period of Roman presence in Britain. If I have a quibble it would be linguistic--although there is discussion of current linguistic theory on the Celtic roots of Early AS English I don't think the authors sufficiently explained that thinking, and there is some fudging going on with that pesky language-geography spread thing. That notwithstanding, the economic, historic, and archaeological arguments are solid. To summarize, Roman Britain: not so Roman after all.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews