The Acculturilisation of the Roman British 400 - 550

[Simon21]

Dot doomsday is not a credible source it is a trash website.

It appears to be one of the best sites available.
But others may take a look and form their own opinions.

simon, do you have any idea how offensive your hypothesis
"The Acculturilisation of the Roman British 400 - 550"
is to Welsh, Scots, and Irish?

Especially since when one looks at the historical record
it is easily apparent that
the Romano-British "acuulturated" the invading Germanic tribes.

Here in North America you get to read plenty of claims
as to how the colonists "aculturated" the Native Peoples.

Do you have any notion of history? At all?

You cannot be bothered to learn Latin or any Amerind language yet to on about insulting people. Dont expect you know scottish,Irish or Welsh either.

And the aculturalisation is an obvious fact, not a hypothesis - like the conversion of Western Europe

Your site is merely a tinpot uncredited site:

1. It idiotically claims to cover 30,000 years. From dot?

2. It is uncredited

3. It uses stupid inaccurate maps.

You simply do not want to do proper research.

[Simon21]

Dot doomsday is not a credible source it is a trash website.

It appears to be one of the best sites available.
But others may take a look and form their own opinions.

simon, do you have any idea how offensive your hypothesis
"The Acculturilisation of the Roman British 400 - 550"
is to Welsh, Scots, and Irish?

Especially since when one looks at the historical record
it is easily apparent that
the Romano-British "acuulturated" the invading Germanic tribes.

Here in North America you get to read plenty of claims
as to how the colonists "aculturated" the Native Peoples.

Do you have any notion of history? At all? You speak Brittonic do you?
Once again all you are doing trolling

Your site is merely a tinpot uncredited sitr:

1. It idiotically claims to cover 30,000 years. From dot?

2. It is uncredited

3. It uses stupid inaccurate maps.

You simply do not want to proper research.

[Simon21]

"Why was the diocese of Britain worth defending?"

Since Christianity was a late phenomenon,
a better question is
"Why was Britain worth conquering?"
What was Britain's value to the Empire and the Emperors?

No it wasn't and this doesn't make any sense

Brilliant then go away and start your own thread.

This is not the subject of this thread

[Simon21]

I belive the answer to E P;s last question is that was a historic source of tin
The Romans used a lot of iron, but bronze was still used a lot.

Very possibly but that is not the subject of the thread. If you want to learn about this look at Tacitus' Agricola. He was Agricola's son in law.

Oh and Caesar of course.

There r those who think 'conquest' is a misconception.

[E.P. Grondine]

Deleted for being inappropriate.

[MichelleH]

EP you are done.

[Simon21]

One of the big provisos of this issue is how much the Romano British were roman. Many have argued that romanitas was a mere facade and that Britain largely remained unaffected by the conquest. This it is said explains the acculturalisation into England - the natives were too busy bashing each other to make common cause against the Anglo Saxons.

But is this true?

Guy De la bedoye cites the famous couplet concerning the British poet Silvius Bonus. How asks the Roman critic can any briton be called good (bonus)? This seems to show Britons were not held in high esteem by the Romans.

[Minimalist]

The division of the empire into east and west was a catastrophic flaw. The west did not have the economic base needed to sustain the empire. Add in the decision by Constantine to essentially de-professionalize the legions and make himself the supreme commander of an allegedly mobile reserve which was not mobile enough as events showed.

In essence, the empire fell because of pilot error.

[Simon21]

The division of the empire into east and west was a catastrophic flaw. The west did not have the economic base needed to sustain the empire. Add in the decision by Constantine to essentially de-professionalize the legions and make himself the supreme commander of an allegedly mobile reserve which was not mobile enough as events showed.

In essence, the empire fell because of pilot error.

Nor quite. Constantine reunited the Empire as did Theodosius the Great. And the Romans still defeated the barbarians nearly everytime they met. Peter Brown points out the fourth and early fifth centuries were times of great prosperity - the fantastic wealth of some Romas is difficult to believe - e.g. Symmachus

[Minimalist]

The Eastern Roman empire lasted another 1,000 years after the West was overrun. Someone did not think that out properly.

[Simon21]

I belive the answer to E P;s last question is that was a historic source of tin
The Romans used a lot of iron, but bronze was still used a lot.

Well not entirely from 1204 to 1261 the Latins ruled after the disgusting and shameful 4th crusade.

[Simon21]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... bury-plain

Reminder if any reminder is needed about the quality of AS metalwork.

Again there is the issue of identity - the figure is described as A/S or is he a Briton who adopted A/S mores

Or does the question even matter