![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't like the title of this. It seems to presume that there was a clear distinction between the Romans and the Britons, and the Romans went leaving the Britons behind. As such it panders to a rather crude 1066-and-all-that vision of the Roman Empire as being similar to European colonisation in eg Africa. What really happened was rather more like a colonisation of settlement, as with the English colonisation of North America or Australia - and over a much longer period as well. It is true that Michael Jones has argued strongly that Romanisation was in some sense a failure in Britain - but this is an academic debate and needs to be reflected in Wikipedia. If we have Roman Britain and sub-Roman Britain, do we really need this as well? Mark O'Sullivan 18:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I've added an {{expand}} tag to the article. Given the growth in WP content since the above comments were added in 2005, I think there's scope for greatly expanding this article now. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with O'Sullivan article title is ""very original"",after 400 years of Roman presence is hard to digest that there was a clear distinction between the Romans and the Britons (as in South Africa under apartheid)-- Altro21 ( talk) 13:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The title is a bullshit,there s no reference to who or what would leave,please rename it "end of roman rule", as all other non-english wikipedia does-- Spacearea123 ( talk) 11:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I support the idea of a rename to "End of Roman rule in Britain", or something similar. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 06:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
In particular, do we need the section on Geoffrey of Monmouth's fantasy writing? I'd suggest that this needs to be a See also at most. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I've replaced the current article with one more focused on the historical events surrounding the article topic.
Reading this talk page and noticing how lightly this article is watched, if it seems uncontroversial, I'll move the article to the title suggested above, End of Roman rule in Britain. Regards, Notuncurious ( talk) 20:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
My respects to Tataryn77's reorganization of several weeks ago, but I've tried to let it "set" and it never seems to "gel" as something better than what it replaced. The compression of sections and paragraphs seems to blur significant points. In particular, Magnus Maximus was significant to the future of Britain, as Roman rule ended in most of Britain through his actions, and he is considered the starting point for several royal dynasties; so I think it appropriate to separate him (383–388) from the imperial choas of later "usurpers" rather than bunching everything into one section. Also, the map applies to the full period of the article topic, so moving it to a section covering only part of the period doesn't seem the best way to go; and the reorganization didn't keep other images in the appropriate places. Any objections to some restoration? It is a pure organization matter, as the text is the same either way. Regards, Notuncurious ( talk) 23:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I hesitate to put this here, but in Australia there is a deeply held idea that the inhabitants of Roman England (sic) were Anglo-Saxon. I even heard a university lecturer say that the Romans subdued the Anglo-Saxons in England but had more trouble with the Celtic Scots and Welsh. He did not like being corrected. I also read in a text book that "in 410 the Romans returned England to the Anglo-Saxons".
With the decline in education in this country, there is some evidence that this myth is spreading here. In one Wikipedia discussion someone asserted that "the British invaded Wales" in the (?) eighth century.
I'm not sure how much this matters, but it adds to the "England=Britain=England" myth, endemic in Australia and possibly growing here. Poshseagull ( talk) 09:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
In reply to the above statement. There were Angles and Saxon serving in the Roman army and based in Britannia pre the migration period, indeed burials have shown that there were Germanic (probably Frisians and Saxons) peoples serving in the Roman army based in Britain as early as the 3rd century AD. With regard to wether or not it was an outright invasion instead of native assimilation, i do not believe this for one minute. I go for the invasion theory. Minorities (and that is what some people think the Anglo Saxons were) do not come in and change the very fabric of a nation, if it did then we would be called Normandy inferior instead of England and our place names would all be French. The Romano Britons fled into the mountains, west (To Cornwall) North West (Wales) and far North (Scotland). Not to mention Brittany which was in effect named for and populated by Britons fleeing the wake of Anglo Saxon advances. That shows a fear of what was happening in their homeland, akin to the refugees fleeing Nazi Germany during WWII. And one final pointer, the name Wales is Old English and means foreigner. So the Foreigners it seems made Wales their home in the violent times of the migration/end of Roman period. English n proud ( talk) 11:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with all concerned here. There is no direct evidence that Honorius' letter even existed. If it is to be referred to all it should state (clearly, with references) that Zozimus (himself unreliable) puts a one liner in a section dealing with the Italy, and that Gildas' comment cannot be extended beyond what it actually says.
Zomimus alludes to Honorius advising the Britons to stiffen their defences.
Gildas' letter refers to the right to manufacture arms.
Neither directly or indirectly says that ANY military forces were removed from Britain.
The folk-myth that Britain was denuded of its forces is fiction until such time as evidence appears. 08:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)VeryLargeCommercialTransport — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryLargeCommercialTransport ( talk • contribs)
I'm on an extended break, but I check in from time to time. I think my contributions are responsible for the contentions in question, but please continue to improve the article ... different strokes for different folks, and certainly good eyes and rational discussion will result in a better article. A few immediate comments:
Please continue to "massage" the article. If you question anything I've written here (in the course of doing research I've left out more than I included), please bring it up on the talk page, and I'll respond semi-promptly (but don't let it slow down the improvements). Best Regards, Notuncurious ( talk) 03:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't contain a single link or mention that I can see to anything about Germanic presence in Britain before the end of Roman rule, or what happened next. Very odd. Johnbod ( talk) 11:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Some commentators still seem to be unaware of the existence of the Vindolanda Tablets and the Bloomberg Tablets. -- dunnhaupt ( talk) 16:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't like the title of this. It seems to presume that there was a clear distinction between the Romans and the Britons, and the Romans went leaving the Britons behind. As such it panders to a rather crude 1066-and-all-that vision of the Roman Empire as being similar to European colonisation in eg Africa. What really happened was rather more like a colonisation of settlement, as with the English colonisation of North America or Australia - and over a much longer period as well. It is true that Michael Jones has argued strongly that Romanisation was in some sense a failure in Britain - but this is an academic debate and needs to be reflected in Wikipedia. If we have Roman Britain and sub-Roman Britain, do we really need this as well? Mark O'Sullivan 18:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I've added an {{expand}} tag to the article. Given the growth in WP content since the above comments were added in 2005, I think there's scope for greatly expanding this article now. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with O'Sullivan article title is ""very original"",after 400 years of Roman presence is hard to digest that there was a clear distinction between the Romans and the Britons (as in South Africa under apartheid)-- Altro21 ( talk) 13:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The title is a bullshit,there s no reference to who or what would leave,please rename it "end of roman rule", as all other non-english wikipedia does-- Spacearea123 ( talk) 11:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I support the idea of a rename to "End of Roman rule in Britain", or something similar. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 06:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
In particular, do we need the section on Geoffrey of Monmouth's fantasy writing? I'd suggest that this needs to be a See also at most. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I've replaced the current article with one more focused on the historical events surrounding the article topic.
Reading this talk page and noticing how lightly this article is watched, if it seems uncontroversial, I'll move the article to the title suggested above, End of Roman rule in Britain. Regards, Notuncurious ( talk) 20:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
My respects to Tataryn77's reorganization of several weeks ago, but I've tried to let it "set" and it never seems to "gel" as something better than what it replaced. The compression of sections and paragraphs seems to blur significant points. In particular, Magnus Maximus was significant to the future of Britain, as Roman rule ended in most of Britain through his actions, and he is considered the starting point for several royal dynasties; so I think it appropriate to separate him (383–388) from the imperial choas of later "usurpers" rather than bunching everything into one section. Also, the map applies to the full period of the article topic, so moving it to a section covering only part of the period doesn't seem the best way to go; and the reorganization didn't keep other images in the appropriate places. Any objections to some restoration? It is a pure organization matter, as the text is the same either way. Regards, Notuncurious ( talk) 23:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I hesitate to put this here, but in Australia there is a deeply held idea that the inhabitants of Roman England (sic) were Anglo-Saxon. I even heard a university lecturer say that the Romans subdued the Anglo-Saxons in England but had more trouble with the Celtic Scots and Welsh. He did not like being corrected. I also read in a text book that "in 410 the Romans returned England to the Anglo-Saxons".
With the decline in education in this country, there is some evidence that this myth is spreading here. In one Wikipedia discussion someone asserted that "the British invaded Wales" in the (?) eighth century.
I'm not sure how much this matters, but it adds to the "England=Britain=England" myth, endemic in Australia and possibly growing here. Poshseagull ( talk) 09:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
In reply to the above statement. There were Angles and Saxon serving in the Roman army and based in Britannia pre the migration period, indeed burials have shown that there were Germanic (probably Frisians and Saxons) peoples serving in the Roman army based in Britain as early as the 3rd century AD. With regard to wether or not it was an outright invasion instead of native assimilation, i do not believe this for one minute. I go for the invasion theory. Minorities (and that is what some people think the Anglo Saxons were) do not come in and change the very fabric of a nation, if it did then we would be called Normandy inferior instead of England and our place names would all be French. The Romano Britons fled into the mountains, west (To Cornwall) North West (Wales) and far North (Scotland). Not to mention Brittany which was in effect named for and populated by Britons fleeing the wake of Anglo Saxon advances. That shows a fear of what was happening in their homeland, akin to the refugees fleeing Nazi Germany during WWII. And one final pointer, the name Wales is Old English and means foreigner. So the Foreigners it seems made Wales their home in the violent times of the migration/end of Roman period. English n proud ( talk) 11:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with all concerned here. There is no direct evidence that Honorius' letter even existed. If it is to be referred to all it should state (clearly, with references) that Zozimus (himself unreliable) puts a one liner in a section dealing with the Italy, and that Gildas' comment cannot be extended beyond what it actually says.
Zomimus alludes to Honorius advising the Britons to stiffen their defences.
Gildas' letter refers to the right to manufacture arms.
Neither directly or indirectly says that ANY military forces were removed from Britain.
The folk-myth that Britain was denuded of its forces is fiction until such time as evidence appears. 08:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)VeryLargeCommercialTransport — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryLargeCommercialTransport ( talk • contribs)
I'm on an extended break, but I check in from time to time. I think my contributions are responsible for the contentions in question, but please continue to improve the article ... different strokes for different folks, and certainly good eyes and rational discussion will result in a better article. A few immediate comments:
Please continue to "massage" the article. If you question anything I've written here (in the course of doing research I've left out more than I included), please bring it up on the talk page, and I'll respond semi-promptly (but don't let it slow down the improvements). Best Regards, Notuncurious ( talk) 03:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't contain a single link or mention that I can see to anything about Germanic presence in Britain before the end of Roman rule, or what happened next. Very odd. Johnbod ( talk) 11:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Some commentators still seem to be unaware of the existence of the Vindolanda Tablets and the Bloomberg Tablets. -- dunnhaupt ( talk) 16:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)